this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
3 points (100.0% liked)

World News

34460 readers
1090 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe work on making life less shitty so people don't drink more?

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Anthopology has provided clear evidence, in all times, in all tribes and continents, the percentage of people that will abuse substances that affect the mind has been steady, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, they will find the substance in the wilderness if it is not in the market.

Alternatively both politically and economically certain entities will use this weakness to control and manipulate people, either by promoting one, or by criminalizing another. Miami became big and important during prohibition because politicians would travel down there to drink and ... whatever else they needed. Bootlegging lasted twice or more after prohibition was reverted, mostly because industrial production wasn't there to cover the need/market.

Opium smoking was common in Europe among the elites all the way to early 20th century. The poor just smoked cheaper stuff.

The WHO are hypocrites than need to hang high and dry

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Got nuts, but if you're worried about people drinking to much work on making it easier to get by as working class. The shorter lifespan is just less getting crushed by the weight of my living expenses.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Surely shaming people and making them feel bad for their choices will work this time, not just cause more animosity in the world. People with drinking problems usually do so to escape something, to bad we can fix those underlying issues.

[–] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Ban all advertising for alcohol, too, please

[–] dukatos@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

You can't advertise alcohol on the TV in my country. Only exception is beer.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There hasn't been an ad for alcohol on US TV for decades and this had no effect, other than saving alcohol industries for wasting money competing with each other in that area.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"I love football on tv, shots of Gina Lee, hangin' with my friends, and twins." ...something-something "and I love you too. It's the love song!"

-Alcohol ads used to have the best jingles.

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

Because you see ads today that means they were always there? Isn't there any basic train of thought anymore, is everyone now living in still pictures? Why are so many people here denying the article I provided earlier where it was saying that NBC after "50" years it begun having liquor ads again.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

" Isn’t there any basic train of thought anymore..."

No, ads, television, and social media destroyed our attention spans.

Now the only tv ads that play are Lawyer ads, Insurance ads, and Pharmaceutical Ads. By comparison, Alcohol ads coming back doesn't seem half-bad.

[–] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Australian sports fields are covered in alcohol logos So the entire time you are watching football with your children, they are exposed

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What is the legal drinking age in Aus? When the Kuwait war started there were kids sent to fight in an unheard land before, and they did and some came back and still couldn't drink legally in the US. You can drive at 16, on a mandatory draft you could be drafted as young as 16, but you have to be 21 to drink and 18 to buy cigarettes. You can sell crack and crystal-meth on the streets, illegal weapons, flesh, easy when you are 15, but you have to pay a homeless drunk to buy you wine or a pack of Camels.

That is your free market hypocrisy at work.

How else can I explain it, there are millions of children dying because of food and water shortages, but WHO thinks alcohol labels will benefit peoples' health ...
Somebody get us some rope ...

[–] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree that there are much bigger problems, but those bigger problems have solutions that are not allowed under capitalism and USA imperialism, so labels is all we're allowed to fix 🤷

The legal drinking age in Australia is 18 years old, and it has always struck me as odd that it's so high in the USA

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

Kids in the US not only abuse alcohol more than any other place in the channel they are used as traffickers for illegal substances due to their less severe criminal treatment. Of course this weight is carried by the lower economic class. In anonymous interviews there was consensus though, it was easier for them to get drugs and guns than alcohol and cigarettes. That's because they had to pay an adult to get it for them, because they are selling everything else.

All this is a structural part of stability of capitalism as you very well state. Unfortunately the formula of that stability is imposed on all other "dependent" states, and in some cases in extremes (Brazil, Phillipines, ..).

[–] iz_ok@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

The alcohol lobby is pretty strong in the US. Good thing we dropped out of WHO. Now we can poison ourselves in peace.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes please. Sick of the double standard. Can't buy flavoured nicotine anymore but can still buy sickeningly flavoured liquor.

[–] Jericho_Kane@lemmy.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's poison, quite literally. State sponsored leathal posion. But it makes money and it's legal, so it's very cool.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Making it illegal won't solve any problems.

[–] Jericho_Kane@lemmy.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

I didn't say they should make it illegal. But stip being hypocrits about it. They still need studies to legalize marijuana, because there isn't enough data for it to be save and jada jada. Okay, but we have more than enough data that shows just how bad and dangerous both alcohol and cigarettes are.

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

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

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

I may not live in Nebraska, and haven't been there for years, but living in a relatively active agricultural country in Europe, nearly 90% of food in the grocery store is now owned by US subsidiaries. When I first came I remember experts bragging that GMOs will never be allowed or enter the EU. Now Monsanto is a native EU corporation, based in Germany with the excuse Bayer (ex Nazi corporation) bought Monsanto, not the other way around. Being so large now, together with BASF and a couple of other giants, you think politicians in Germany will stop them and turn against them, and what becomes OK in Germany is mandated all over the EU. Then we have the leading laboratory of hybrids and GMOs called the Netherlands who make tulips smell like onions and onions smelling like roses, and garlic looking like an apple.

The whole world is so doomed because of capitalism nobody has a clue anymore what we can do and how it will ever stop.

[–] penquin@lemmy.kde.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Capitalism is cancer

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

RIP bash.org.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can we do all petroleum products too?

this product is causing mass extinction of an estimated X thousand species

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't have a choice on the matter, so why waste bandwidth with empty proposals? Consumer tendencies and ideology is an illusion to keep movements away from threatening economic interests of the industrial/banking world. Change can never come from consumer modification.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Of course we do. See Big Tobacco.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn't hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke. No move was made against tobacco till the US signed trade agreements with China to allow Big Tobacco to sell in the world's #1 smoking market. Look back at that date, then follow stock market prices of BT after the date. PM and RJR diversified, even put a foot into Big Pharma taking up their market.

Still, when you sum up all control substances including psychotropic recipied substances, the grand total hasn't changed a bit. The quality of the market changed, the quantity didn't. The poor kept smoking the rich just got Prozac

[–] henry1917@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn’t hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke.

What do you mean "falsified findings?"

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn’t hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke.

What do you mean “falsified findings?”

There is no evidence today of the ills of 2nd hand smoke, so how did this support back then came about the 2nd hand smoke is just as dangerous?

There is so much false rhetoric and propaganda in addictive substances it is pathetic. Just search around on medical centers treating addictions, look for nicotine, being accused for cancer, heart disease ... there has never been any evidence that other than a psychological addiction that nicotine alone causes any harm. If you suffer from hypertension and have weak vessels, yes you can die from it, but you can die from coffee or just getting scared.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

How the fuck could second hand smoke be safe if first hand smoke isn't? Isn't smoke inherently unsafe to breathe? Even wood fire smoke can cause cancer, you aren't supposed to breathe smoke!

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

you go learn science and research methodology then go make up your own stuff, till then just research sci.journals on what they deduced. Most urban street air is much more toxic and dangerous than inhaling 2nd hand smoke in a bar

Nicotine, a harmless substance, liquefies in such a high temperature that it can hardly make it through the filter and into your lips in gaseous form, so people saying you are spitting nicotine by breathing smoke are full of crap and illusions (I don't see religion being banned for that).

Carbon monoxide? Carbon particles and biproducts of burning carbo-hydrates, as long as our lives are surrounded by vehicles the exhaling of smoke from a smoker's mouth is negligible.

But it stinks! Aaa... but you smell like industrial aromatics, perfumes, deodorants, detergents ... working on a Caterpillar bulldozer stinks but I don't hear anyone banning them

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Most urban street air is much more toxic and dangerous than inhaling 2nd hand smoke in a bar

That's an indictment of our shitty society with its shitty air quality, not an absolution for second hand smoke. We should eliminate both.

But it stinks! Aaa… but you smell like industrial aromatics, perfumes, deodorants, detergents … working on a Caterpillar bulldozer stinks but I don’t hear anyone banning them

Well I don't see Caterpillar bulldozers inside bars either 🙃

Again, this is an indictment of our shitty society. We should be banning dirty engines too - electric motors can achieve the same level of torque (and greater!) without pumping out cancer causing pollutants that stink up our world.

All smoke is dangerous. We should reduce it as much as possible, from all sources.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Again, this is an indictment of our shitty society. We should be banning dirty engines too - electric motors can achieve the same level of torque (and greater!) without pumping out cancer causing pollutants that stink up our world.

Ignorance doesn't clean the air, with the average country still making electric power and transmitting it in long distances in the most inefficient and expensive ways, 86% is produced by burning fossil fuels, and this doesn't include the risk of nuclear power, although clean till you deal with storing depleted uranium. Urban yuppies have been sold the illusion their electric car doesn't pollute, a 60s Rambler running still doesn't pollute, a 5y old electric vehicle in the dumpsite near you will fill the area with toxins. Electricity produced, transmitted, used for charging at less than 40% efficiency, pollutes more than a 60s gas-gassler.

But electric, thermoplastics, vehicle AND OIL/COAL industries need to sell a myth to the urban yuppie to accessorize in something "different" that will stick out and make them feel superior. The upcoming huge environmental hazzard is lack of recycling of useless electric vehicles and their batteries, the enormous amount of excess electricity produced to cover transportation with electricity, and the economic crisis that will result from this irresponsible madness governments are allowing to take place.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We should ban private car ownership, no question. That would do a hell of a lot to improve air quality. People can take a train, ride a bike, or work remotely.

We're still going to need bulldozers, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›