Hacker News Reader

Comment by SonicScrub | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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.

It's a great metric in determining whether something is Good, per the Lindy effect.

violence also is as old as humanity, so…

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.

Same with hallucinogenics. Sexy media didn’t create demand for these products/resources.

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?

I have my doubts. Alcohol requires fermentation. Many of the traditional hallucinogenics just require munching the right leaf, fungus, etc.

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.

Yeah definitely. There are some people who are real passionate about the magic-mushrooms-caused-cognitive-evolution theory because it validates their lifestyle choices.

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.

What a bunch of killjoys on here today. Most people are happy to accept the small harms from moderate consumption.

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.

> 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.

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.

Well, drunk driving is a serious problem that can affect others.

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.

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.

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?

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?

It'll happen.

Once the planet runs our of such resources to consume and we are forced to stop.

Has been done before that for countless other substances.

There is already a lot of alarm over PFAS and plastics. It's likely to be the lead paint or asbestos of our generation.

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.

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.

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.

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

Have you spent anytime outside of the US?

I've never spent any time in the US.

The difference is that alcohol is quite fun...

Smoking was popularly seen as quite fun as well. Less so now. It's role in culture shifted.

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...

Smoking has a calming effect.

How is that fun?

Smoking also helps with weight loss.

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.

this is why we are taught in HS how insidious smoking is. We were taught that with many drugs (say heroin), one is always chasing that "first high", as it is tremendous feeling, and subsequent usages never are the same. While with cigarettes, almost universally people will tell you that their initial usage is terrible, they can't stand it.

The only reason people are able to keep doing it is because they get used to it, and their body develop a dependency on it.

> While with cigarettes, almost universally people will tell you that their initial usage is terrible, they can't stand it.

Sounds like beer.

> Sounds like beer.

I disagree. While a lot of people might not like the taste of their first beer, they tend to not have the same feelings about the effects of it.

E.g., the first time i tried mezcal, I was not really into the flavor of it, but I liked how it made me feel afterwards. Eventually I developed an appreciation for the flavor and started genuinely liking it (just like it happened with beer for a lot of people). But I liked the effects of it the first time around just like I liked them later on, all that's changed is flavor.

Had a similar experience in terms of flavor with some cheeses as well, it is just an acquired taste. And in case of cheeses (unlike with mezcal), there was no "feeling" that I liked the first time around, I just eventually started enjoying the flavor.

With cigarettes, the first time I tried it, there was not a single feeling I liked about it at all.

as he said, there's a difference between disliking the taste of something and something physically making you ill (i.e. it making you cough and feel terrible). i.e. your body is telling you "this is poison". so yeah, you can acclimate to the poison, but its still poison. Even if one considers ethanol to be poison, the first consumptions of it (say in wine) doesn't give the same reaction.

I'm not sure this is really true, you get huge nicotine buzzes at first, though too much can make you feel nauseous.

The limited amount I’ve smoked shows it has an effect similar to coffee but less jittery.

> A non smoker who tries their first cigarette is no more relaxed or confident or calm than they were before.

Heh, I can tell you've never smoked.

I'm not a smoker, but did try a cigar once. Combined with alcohol, it was an utterly euphoric experience. Think caffeine times ten, at least. I quite literally dreamed about smoking for a couple of days after that experience.

Does that effect persist for regular users? Nope. But for non-smokers it can be a very pleasurable experience.

You aren’t supposed to inhale the cigar smoke!

I mean my first experiences with tobacco did involve a bit of a head rush, but I’d hardly call it a “utterly euphoric experience”

>smoking has no meaningful affect unless you're already addicted

This isn't true. I started smoking socially in the summer and nicotine absolutely gives you a head rush and relaxing feelings. It also suppresses my appetite quite a bit. I found if I just ate and I'm full and then smoke a cigarette it makes me want to throw up.

And on the topic of fun, it is a social thing and you meet all kinds of interesting people by smoking. It's such a great ice breaker at the bar to meet people.

I gave it up because it's winter and I don't go out to bars as much. Plus it's cold and I have no desire to go outside and smoke anyways. I'll definitely pick it up socially again next summer though, it was one of the best summers of my life.

I would say the difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k). At least in the country I currently live in, anti-smoking measures were not introduced to protect smokers but to protect those around them. At least that was the official narrative.

Getting hit by a drunk driver is a significant bystander effect.

Alcohol abuse has a huge effect on other people. Just think of drunk driving and domestic abuse.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

https://pbinstitute.com/alcohol/domestic-violence/

Sure, but abolishing all alcohol because of possible consequences of too much alcohol is hard to sell. Even when talking about people getting really pissed, I would bet that more often than not nothing too bad happens to their environment.

> he difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k)

I don't think we were talking about abolishing alcohol. Parent claimed alcohol consumption does not have an effect on others which is objectively wrong.

The vast majority of problem drinking is done by like 10% of americans. I don't think a warning label is going to stop them when they already consume a HUGE amount of alcohol every week

I always thought the "bystander effect" was a load of propaganda.

Even though I'm happy that airplanes/restaurants/offices are now free of smoke. I'm old enough to remember when every building stank of stale smoke.

Interesting. What made you think that? I was under the impression that passive smoking was pretty well studied.

For one thing, the concentration has to be a thousand times less. For another, you're just not around it that much. For a third, how can one reliably measure the exposure? Far too many variables.

PM2.5 concentrations tend to be very high around smokers. I live next to one, and even though we're separated by a door and he smokes in his own apartment, the smoking frequently pushes air in my apartment above 200 µg/m³. (I have 3 years of data to prove it.)

Since the outside air is typically even more dangerous here, I can't simply open a window and have to use air filters to combat this.

https://0x0.st/s/6LnsVC92Wy4es4tLN9iF5w/ohKp.png

So the outside air is more dangerous than second hand smoke?

> I always thought the "bystander effect" was a load of propaganda.

I can personally confirm that standing by smokers / staying in smokers' houses is quite good for triggering asthma. So I suggest you tampen down your propaganda claims.

Funny you're mentioning that. I've got a relative who counters onset of asthma by smoking, though with very light tobacco and long, thin filters, and on demand only.

I do similar things after eating, because I seem to have varying intolerances against the foods which are common now. Making my nose run, sometimes going to the eyes, giving me tears, over to coughing, and in more rare cases even constricting my throat. All that is going away instantly after a few draws of a selfmade small cigarette with long thin filter, exhaling the smoke through the nose.

Furthermore I don't wan't to lose the ability to smoke light weed from time to time, without coughing and spitting fits :-)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26440943/ seems a good place to start in correcting your misconception here.

    Conclusions: Our overview of systematic reviews of observational epidemiological evidence suggests that passive smoking is significantly associated with an increasing risk of many diseases or health problems, especially diseases in children and cancers.

edit: removed some unnecessary sarcasm

Then you have a poorly configured bullshit detector. Second hand smoke was studied in depth, and plenty of children have ended up with health problems from their parent's smoking. It is only a "controversial" fact among people who refuse to give up smoking for the benefit of their families.

> only

I've never smoked, and neither has anyone in my family except my mom who quit before I was born. I've never smoked marijuana, either, though I voted to legalize it.

I.e. I have no personal agenda with either.

Drinking has enormous external effects and I'd rather be around a chain smoker than a drunk.

Me, I'm the opposite.

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.

You think one drink of alcohol doesn't have a negative effect on your liver?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com