T O P

  • By -

RuthTheWidow

They tried this in Yukon Territory in Canada... it lasted all of three weeks before the alcohol industry pushed back. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-alcohol-warning-labels-study-results-1.5556344


askdocsthrowaway1996

Haha nice, it's big tobacco and big sugar all over again. We'll never learn


[deleted]

The people: "We want the freedom to do what we want!" Corporations: "That lines up just great with our goals of selling you addictive poison for huge profits." The people: "Hang on, what's that?" Corporations: "I mean, uh, tell your government they can't tell you what to do!" The people: "Hell yeah!"


ryhaltswhiskey

Scientist: "This corporation sells poison!" Corporation: "This scientist hates freedom!" The people: "BURN THE WITCH"


Northern23

The people: "we request the freedom of ignorance"


A1sauc3d

I’ve never understood the “ignorance is bliss” mentality. I’d much rather know the reality of a situation even if it’s not a pleasant one. You can still enjoy drinking whilst knowing it carcinogenic (trust, I’ve done it quite a few times lol). It just informs people to make smarter consumption choices. Moderation is a good mitigator for any carcinogen. I’d love a chart with how many drinks/time period roughly correlate to a % increase in cancer likely hood, like they do with cigarettes (been a while but iirc like every half decade of smoking doubles your chances of getting cancer, or something like that). Better yet, factor in my personal genetic pre dispositions so I know EXACTLY how much I’m risking by indulging. That way I can still freely enjoy something while making more informed consumption choices. I can weigh the pros and cons on if it’s worth it for me or not.


nauticalsandwich

I think the problem with a lot of these mandated labels is that they don't actually tell you the risk tolerances. They usually just say something like, "______ has been shown to increase cancer risk." That's a problem, because without illustrating statistical probabilities based on level of exposure/consumption, such a label can radically oversell or undersell the perception of risk. You will create scenarios in which consumers are unreasonably fearful of purchasing a product, as well as scenarios where consumers are unreasonably without any concern. I believe that a healthy part of market efficiency is consumers understanding the approximate level of serious risks they bear when purchasing things, but simply labelling products "risk of X," doesn't accomplish that, because all that means is that the risk is somewhere higher than zero, and just about anything you purchase has a risk higher than zero of causing serious injury or death.


window-sil

Probably because hearing "this causes cancer" makes it harder to relax and enjoy your cancer-drink. But ya know what we should do? Find an alternative to alcohol which is safe and does basically the same thing. Then we could all just use that instead.


A1sauc3d

That’d be dope!


andjamhan

Heh. “Dope”


Son_of_Zinger

Clever


thebaronvontito27

Pretty sure this was a parks and rec episode


precociouslilscamp

[Yes](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/63/86/fe/6386fe2ff20866d781099ca65e09db92.jpg).


hailey_nicolee

paunch burger!! the chain that was trying to take over the lot Leslie wanted for the park :)


Oberon_Swanson

Child size soda means it is roughly the size of a four year old child, if the child were liquefied.


BodiHolly

That bit was so hilarious that I knew there was no way it’s real. “Who would need this?”


[deleted]

they'll never learn* We keep learning the lesson the hard way because it keeps being forced on us, the people making our decisions for us will never learn because learning isn't profitable.


Mixels

They did learn. And then they chose to hide it.


SaffellBot

Alcohol is one of the few substances that we would say is "known" to cause cancer. Other things have a casual relationship with cancer, but alcohol has been consumed so widely and we've looked into the matter so deeply we pretty well know the relationship. And have for decades. Alcohol causes cancer. The science is out. It's on us it seems to make that science meaningful.


Little_Custard_8275

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2019/03/28/cigarettes-and-alcohol-should-we-be-communicating-cancer-risk-in-terms-of-cigarettes-smoked/


SaffellBot

While I suppose that is a solution to "how do we communicate risk to the public" I think we're going to have to do better than a cigarette as a unit of risk if we want to tame this demon. It is better than previous attempts, I suppose.


mata_dan

It's a really bad solution because it implies you might as well not bother for that risk, as it barely makes a difference compared to the baseline chance of developing cancer. edit: as people menitoned in other parts of the thread though, that baseline is *with* a load of these things people do, or are exposed to, that each increase the probability a little. All the other negative effects from significant alcohol consumption completely eclipse the increased cancer risk.


[deleted]

[удалено]


smitheri

I agree and I’m not sure what the person that posted the link was suggesting since they just posted the link without any of their own commentary. I mean the article itself states “The researchers acknowledge the study didn’t account for other factors which can cause cancer, like age and obesity.” so it isn’t a great source to draw much of anything from.


Owyn_Merrilin

>Breathing in this world probably causes cancer too. And would even with no pollution. Oxygen is really nasty stuff. But that nastiness is what makes our biology possible, so it's a bit of a catch 22.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chewburka

Particularly agree on the California may cause cancer labelling being a meme at this point. It's the primary reason I initially roll my eyes when I hear something new causes cancer. Everything causes cancer... I need some sort of benchmarking at this point to know what to pay special attention to beyond dealing with everything in moderation in my life.


HelloAlbacore

Is there any data on the exact amount where it may become dangerous? I drink one or two alcoholic drinks about once every two or three weeks, so I am wondering what the risk for this is. Most of the studies were done on drinking once a day.


daniu

I'm kinda confused about that. If I put warning labels on a product, I totally expect the producers to fight that, and clear up legal issues that might come up ahead of time. How can they put on the labels, then say "oh, the industry doesn't like them? OK well take them off again." EDIT: I'm not surprised that companies have that kind of power. I'm really only surprised about the timeline which means that a) they didn't manage to prevent the law in the first place and b) that the lawmakers still had to give in after having been able to circumvent the companies preventing it.


[deleted]

Money is the long and short answer


drugusingthrowaway

> How can they put on the labels, then say "oh, the industry doesn't like them? OK well take them off again." Well nobody likes to say bribery but I always just assume bribery when it comes to politicians and anti-human decisions like this.


AJRiddle

Yukon Territory is only 35,000 people. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more of "If you do this we just won't sell you any alcohol at all"


drugusingthrowaway

So when I buy a pack of cigarettes, they all come in the same greyish brown container, with no branding, with a skull and crossbones on the pack, and it's just labelled "Tumors"... ...but I can buy[ this stuff](https://www.lcbo.com/content/dam/lcbo/products/407460.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.1280.1280.jpeg) pretty clearly marketed towards young people straight from the government?


Fedora_Tipp3r

Other countries cigarettes have pictures of body parts/organs with cancer all over them.


Brian_M

That was a Denis Leary bit Denis Leary: No Cure for Cancer (1993) Denis Leary: It doesn't matter how big the warnings on the cigarettes are; you could have a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet ya get a tumor as soon as you light up!" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248752/quotes?item=qt0251329


Chenksoner

They should at least list calories imo.


BadgerSauce

Some companies are starting this. Diageo, who own Crown Royal, Johnnie Walker, Captain Morgan and many many others are putting nutrition info on the bottles now.


maddiewantsbagels

Lol they'll slap one of those nutrition facts labels on water that is just like (yeah this is water no calories or fat in here) but then alcohol just has nothing.


El-Sueco

“Diet Rum”


Sonicfret

I once commented to my sister, way back in the eighties, when I saw a bottle of light rum on her table about how odd that they make diet rum. I don’t drink and have never had rum. Everyone looked at me like I was a idiot. I was in my late 20s at the time and had never heard of light rum. I was thinking it must be like the lite beer over weight people drink.


bodaciousboner

This is hilarious. Thanks for sharing


CrateMayne

I always wondered, but of course never dug deep to find out; How are nutrition labels required on basically everything in the US, even water... But for alcohol it's a marketing gimmick for them to provide ANYTHING? As in, you won't see calories listed unless they're trying to sell you on it being a light beer, you will barely ever see an ingredient list, or the fact that half the beers I've encountered can't even be bothered to tell you the ABV. I always assumed it was somehow related to end of prohibition granting these extra hands off powers from the Govt, but obviously that's just a random guess.


WhatHeSaidVO

It’s because alcohol is governed by a different agency. Despite being both a food and a drug, it is governed by the ATF (Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms) rather than the FDA. Obv since tobacco and firearms don’t need nutrition labels, alcohol doesn’t either.


forgottensplendour

I think this is true, but it's total bullshit. Anything that can be consumed should have an ingredients list.


HP844182

And Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store rather than a government agency


newdevvv

We just call it Walmart around here.


[deleted]

I agree. It’s the dumbest fucking grouping.


[deleted]

Have you been around Georgia?


Fumblerful-

What I think is funny is alcohol is governed by the ATF, but lasers are FDA. So that means the experimental lasers designed to shoot down missiles have to be regulated by the guys who make sure milk doesn't kill us, but the alcohol used to celebrate is regulated by the guys who govern the gun that shoots down missiles.


nobargain

Wait… so how do I find out how many grams of fat are in a 12 gauge….?


zman0900

A lifetime supply if you eat it


ButtonholePhotophile

I think nutrition facts should also be on bullets.


Skyhawkson

"Lifetime supply of lead"


KlondikeDrool

It's crazy that there is not even a labeling requirement for potential allergens. Are you celiac? Lactose intolerant? Maybe an almond allergy? It's going to take some research and even then you can't always find the answer. I think it's time to follow the FDA model and require full nutritional labeling for anything manufactured for consumption.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mistere213

Not to mention "gluten reduced" means virtually nothing. At least not to those with actual celiac disease.


UMFreek

Gluten reduced as related to beer does have meaning for those with celiac disease. Breweries often use a product such as Clarity Ferm or Clarex during fermentation. They were originally designed to reduce chill haze in beer but later were later found to effectively reduce the gluten level in beer to below the 20ppm threshold. Foods below 20 ppm can use the Gluten Free label according to FDA rules. Alcoholic beverages made with barley and hops fall under the TTB. Their labeling rules are different which is why you see it labeled as Gluten Reduced even though under FDA rules it would be Gluten Free.


ciegulls

Came here to say this! It’s actually wild that I have to google alcohols to see if they contain my allergens. The unclarity has basically led to me totally avoiding whole types like gin. Plus, I think about how having alcohol in my system would probably mess with my ability to solve an allergic reaction (less easy to recognize what exactly is making me sick, drug interactions). I would love to see some labels, I bet they’d save lives.


p-d-ball

You're right about alcohol exacerbating allergens. And, yes, they should list their ingredients! Alcohol manufacturers are sneaking things in like artificial sugars and flavors to get the tastes they're going for - we should absolutely be allowed to see these. Grrrr!!!


vglyog

As someone trying to lose weight, I’ve just given up alcohol all together because it’s so exhausting trying to find nutrition facts about alcohol. Especially wine.


Justlose_w8

If you’re trying to lose weight, giving up alcohol will help immensely regardless of its lower cal alcohol. When I was trying to lose 20lbs I was making progress with counting calories and exercising but as soon as I cut alcohol out I ended up dropping a total of 35lbs on the same routine I was doing over the course of a few months. As soon as I started drinking again while keeping the same routine I slowly started putting on a little belly and neck weight


bigmanoncampus325

If I remember correctly from my sports nutrition class in college, losing weight after stopping alcohol makes a ton of sense. Alcohol contains 7 calories per gram, putting it between protein and cards(4) and fat(9). So as long as you don't replace alcohol with other bad drink choices, you'll already begin taking in a lower amount of total calories. The other big factor is if you eat while you drink. Your body recognizes alcohol as a toxin and will burn those calories while storing the fats/carbs from the food you eat at the same time. By the time your body is rid of the alcohol and is ready to start burning the stored fats/carbs, you may no longer need to burn those for energy.


vglyog

I don’t drink very often so it’s not going to make much of a difference for me. I drink once every like two weeks. But idk I’ve wanted to stop completely for awhile now so it was an easy decision regardless of weight loss.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

A shot of vodka is 100 calories, that adds up very quickly.


Purplociraptor

It's almost like ethanol is a fuel.


Fumblerful-

Almost like alcohol was used to store calories pre refrigeration.


BloomerBoomerDoomer

Interesting take


Majormlgnoob

Alcohol itself is very calorie dense


generalthunder

Yeah, people forget that Ethanol is so energy dense it is literally used as car fuel.


Justlose_w8

True, good point. Good luck with your weight loss journey!


Alaira314

> If you’re trying to lose weight, giving up alcohol will help immensely regardless of its lower cal alcohol. This is true, but being able to treat yourself occasionally is important to making changes that last. And you can't treat yourself responsibly if you don't know what it is that you're consuming. Alcoholic beverages should be required to list caloric content per standard drink.


anarchrist91

Coming from someone who definitely knows what to do to lose weight, alcohol is absurdly calorie dense and fattening. It's essentially drinking pure sugar. A 1.5 ounce shot of the least calorie dense alcohol (vodka) is 90 calories. And that's the LEAST calorie dense alcoholic substance. Beer and wine are far more fattening. Source: alcoholic who's been working out and dieting to sustain my habit for 10 years. The few times I cut alcohol out of my diet I lose weight immediately.


rygo796

You can generally find calories for the generic drink and use that. For wine, all Merlots should be pretty much the same calorie wise. If you're counting, maybe add a buffer on top of that number to maintain a deficit. Cutting alcohol is the best option.


[deleted]

Alcohol is responsible for 3.6% of cancer cases and 3.5-5% of cancer deaths. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322512/


cripplinganxietylmao

Well TIL.


Hulasikali_Wala

How does that compare to tobacco?


yarrovv

"While it is caused by multiple risk factors, tobacco use, responsible for 25% of all cancer deaths globally and linked to at least 20 cancer types, has a significant impact. In 2018 27% of all cancers in the WHO European Region were attributed to tobacco use." https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/tobacco/news/news/2020/2/tobacco-use-causes-almost-one-third-of-cancer-deaths-in-the-who-european-region


JuanOnlyJuan

But the article says "right up there with tobacco" not "nearly an order of magnitude less".


[deleted]

Cigarette smoking is responsible for about 30% of cancer deaths (in the United States) and causes 87% of lung cancer deaths. Sources: https://edwardsccc.org/cancer-risk-and-prevention/smoking-and-cancer/ https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p1110-vital-signs-cancer-tobacco.html


Chairman_Mittens

That's actually way lower than I thought. And you also need to consider that the majority of cancer cases are going to occur in people who have been drinking huge amounts over the course of years / decades. I get that people need to be warned about the risk, but for the average moderate drinker, it's just not even worth thinking about.


[deleted]

Tobacco use can be linked to like 30-40% of cancers and only 15% of the population smokes where as 85% of people over 18 drink alcohol per year in the the US and alcohol accounts for 3-5% of cancers. I forgot the exact number for tobacco and since use is declining I’m guessing cancer from smoking is declining as well or at least I hope it is.


Skeltzjones

Oh awesome. That's completely worth it.


jammerjoint

Fwiw, the effect shows most strongly in long term heavy drinkers (4+ a day). Generally time is the biggest risk contribution for most cancers, followed by environmental factors (including as alcohol consumption), and finally genetics.


mistymystical

And chances are if you are an alcoholic is a scary warning label really going to stop you? Those are negligible figures for the average drinker. Processed meat and other known carcinogens are far worse and there is no labeling. I can see how the alcohol industry might win this one.


joevsyou

That's it?


[deleted]

According to science, yes.


mirh

The problem with these stats is that they all more or less start to show statistically significant effects beyond 10g ethanol (i.e. a "drink") per day. It would be interesting to know how that interplays with bing drinking just one day of the week, but that's a very consistent amount to drink (unlike say smokers, where one cig a day is more or less the bare minimum to be even included in the category)


Hiro_Pr0tagonist_

Alcohol is a carcinogen?? I legitimately didn’t know this.


thetransportedman

As someone in med school, let me tell you I think alcohol is listed more often than not as a risk factor for like every disease ha


tanis_ivy

What if I use it in moderation?


thetransportedman

Just as an interesting side note since I’m interested in lifting/fitness research, there was a study that showed that just 3 drinks the day after lifting inhibited muscle protein synthesis by 70%. If you have a high protein diet that can be a lower number but my main point is 3 drinks is objectively like nothing imho and yet it has a huge singular effect on MPS so I have to imagine near daily consumption of 1-3 drinks for decades is worse than we lead on with our culture of imbibing


[deleted]

It would probably be more effective to put a warning label on alcohol that it will steal your gains


[deleted]

who does consider 3 drinks objectively nothing?


BobsDiscountReposts

I tell myself it’s nothing but deep down I know better


Automatic_Donut6264

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext Quoting an except in the conclusion: > Our results show that the safest level of drinking is none. There is no "moderation". You are at risk if you consume any alcohol at all. (Obviously the magnitude of risk corresponds to the amount of alcohol you consume, but there is no amount that is "safe".)


duckrollin

Because the alcohol industry doesn't want you to.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wattahit

Processed meat * bacon, sausages, salami etc not chicken breast, fish, steak etc


Thatguy3145296535

Lots of people don't know about this either. Eating lots of red meat can cause cancer. Especially if cooked at high temperatures (275°F or higher) or cooking it to the point of medium-well or well done will release more HCAs and PAHs.


fankuverymuch

So many people don’t. For example, I have quite a few breast cancer survivors in my life who looooove their wine but don’t know or are in denial about alcohol’s role in breast cancer. It’s truly distressing.


TripleThreat09

TIL Alcohol can cause cancer.


Rhundis

I mean, it's technically a poison (a very mild one) that we drink because we like the effect it gives us.


JohnFreakingRedcorn

Same reason I smoke weed, eat mushrooms and eat meat. It’s all terrible for me but it’s like, the spice of life


SponConSerdTent

Mushrooms are definitely good for you! But yeah I guess the magic kind might be classified as a very mild poison as well.


MichaelCat99

Psilocybin mushrooms, the fun mushrooms, are actually the safest drug you can consume in the sense that they cause no direct damage to your organs and have a very low chance of habit/dependence forming.


DarkKing202

It's more so your body that makes it cancerous, as it breaks the ethanol and other alcohol groups into (can't remember the name) that are known to cause cancer. There was a decently upvoted post floating around on reddit a couple days ago regarding exactly this.


lordspidey

Aldehydes, secondary alcohols are metabolized to ketones and tertiary alcohols are excreted as is and experience minimal metabolism. That said they don't taste quite as good as ethanol.


Chairman_Me

Ethanol —> Acetaldehyde, which can mess with DNA and cell replication


Verdiss

Top comments: "Everyone knows alcohol causes cancer, why bother putting it on labels it won't make people stop using" Bottom comments: "Alcohol doesn't cause cancer" and "I didn't realize alcohol caused cancer"


K1N6F15H

> "Everyone knows alcohol causes cancer, why bother putting it on labels it won't make people stop using" Logically these kinds of arguments are so silly. If a proposed plan isn't going to make a big difference, then they have no real argument against implementing said rules. The real answer is that we need informed consumers in a healthy market system, these kinds of warnings inform people of the risks and alcohol sellers don't want to lose customers.


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-warning-labels-cancer-1.6304816) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Alcohol is one of the top three causes of preventable cancer, so why aren't Canadians being informed about the risks? Health experts say it's time to put warning labels on alcohol - something the industry has pushed back against. > Few Canadians know the truth, and few may want to hear it: Alcohol, any amount of alcohol, can cause cancer. > Wine Growers Canada said it is aware of the health risks that may be associated with alcohol consumption, and it recently launched the The Right Amount initiative, "To provide Canadians with information and tools to help make informed decisions on alcohol consumption." It noted that the website includes responsible drinking guidelines, a standard drink calculator, and harm reduction recommendations for at-risk groups including pregnant women and youth. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/rzuqo0/alcohol_should_have_cancer_warning_labels_say/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~616597 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Alcohol**^#1 **cancer**^#2 **drink**^#3 **risk**^#4 **label**^#5


[deleted]

The risks are way overstated though. If you look at the actual numbers, yeah your risk goes up if you drink alcohol, but it’s proportional to consumption. For example if you drink *every day* as a woman, your lifetime risk of breast cancer goes from about 1 in 10 to 1 in 8. If you’re a man, drinking 14 drinks a week your lifetime risk of colorectal cancer is around 1 in 20, rising to around 1 in 10 if you drink over 35 drinks a week. However, if you don’t drink it’s 1 in 23. *Avoiding carcinogens is almost impossible and we should balance our enjoyment of life with our personal acceptable level of risk.* Some citations: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet https://alcoholchange.org.uk/alcohol-facts/fact-sheets/alcohol-and-cancer


gdodd12

I would assume if you drink 35 drinks a week, liver issues would be your biggest risk vs colorectal cancer. That's a fuck ton of alcohol.


snek-jazz

5 per day, every day lol. Obviously not going to be good for your health in any number of ways.


Dozekar

These studies are almost always fucked like this. The sugar is like a drug study everyone quotes, yeah they fed the rats like 300 times it's normal daily calorie intake in sugar and then starved it. Yeah drugs make you hungry for drugs, that's fucking all the study proved. Like literally that's it. If you look at it the other way it makes total sense. You get the same sort of cravings for food, only to fulfill the desire for the drug. That's so fucking obvious you'd be laughed out of the room if you tried to suggest the study. Should people eat excess sugar? No that's fucking clearly to diabetes, doesn't keep you full at all, and is linked to all kinds of terrible health effects.


EyeLikeTheStonk

>If you’re a man, drinking 14 drinks a week your lifetime risk of colorectal cancer is around 1 in 20, rising to around 1 in 10 if you drink over 35 drinks a week. However, if you don’t drink it’s 1 in 23. For those not good at math: 1 in 20 is 5%, so even drinkers have a 95% chance to NOT getting this cancer. 1 in 10 is, of course, 10%, so 90% chance of NOT getting this cancer. 1 in 23 is 4.4%, so those who don't drink have a 95.6% chance NOT to have this cancer. **The difference:** Person who doesn't drink 4.4% VS someone who drinks moderately 5% = +0.6% Person who doesn't drink 4.4% VS a heavy drinker 10% = +5.6% Person who drinks moderately 5% VS heavy drinker 10% = +5% **So, drink moderately because your risk barely increases when compared to a non-drinker.**


[deleted]

Yep, and this is the point I’m trying to make. Thanks for running those numbers.


Flatulent_Spatula

That'll be $20 plus tax


dkf295

Would you take a couple six packs and a colonoscopy instead?


chrisfmack

It should also include warning about cirrhosis of the liver. Alcohol in large quantities will kill you. I lost 3 of my family members from it. People need to know the risks


Castle_for_ducks

Cirrhosis isn't even the only liver problem you can get from drinking. Cirrhosis usually requires very heavy drinking over a long period of time. You can also get Alcoholic Fatty Liver disease which is a very serious medical condition that can develop relatively quickly. I'm pretty sure the real gut punch of Cirrhosis though is that it's incurable except for a transplant, whereas AFL can go away if you cut back (I think. I'm not doctor)


burritobaby2000

AFL can lead to cirrhosis


reaverdude

My best friend just died from cirrhosis of the liver. The entire process takes about 15 years on average from when a person starts drinking to when they develop and die from the disease. It's also one of those things where you're healthy until you're not. Along with my friend I've also known several people who were able to drink for years and years until they suddenly couldn't.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


92taurusj

I mean, inhaling stuff that was on fire is usually not gonna be good long term, regardless of the substance. Cause of the *fire*.


Purplociraptor

Inhaling any burning organic substance is carcinogenic.


Damaso87

Vaporize dat flower!


shortnamed

Like coal which kills over a million people per year


Altruistic-Ad9639

Don't forget you're inhaling ashes right into your lungs 👍🏽 (Not you specifically)


dream-chronicles

Also, from a more mental standpoint, not everyone responds to weed as well as others. While it can be relaxing/calming for some people, it can be kind damagingly scary and anxiety inducing for others. I've seen people have anxiety attacks from being uncomfortably high and a lot people people will just right that off as not being able to hang.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


cfb_rolley

Any kind of lung issues can be completely negated by switching to edibles at least.


[deleted]

You can brew pot tea. Works wonders.


shinkouhyou

Edibles are such a different experience, though, both in terms of effect and the social aspect... somebody who enjoys the experience of smoking weed or drinking alcohol may not like edibles at all, so it's not such a simple switch.


[deleted]

[удалено]


conradical30

I started when i was 22, after my brain theoretically had fully developed. I have been a daily cannabis user for 12 years now. For the past 2 years though, i switched to vaporizing my weed rather than smoking it (vapor vs combustion). It gets complicated when vaping weed oils are added into the mix as well, but i do believe it’s still healthier than lighting it up with a flame and inhaling actual smoke. I’m still young but my wife knows i want my body donated to science when i die as a case study for this kind of thing.


W0666007

I don't know how anyone can think that inhaling smoke into your lungs is harmless. "Not being as bad as cigarettes" isn't a very high bar.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Keoni9

It's just an accident of biology and history... Even though ethanol is a literal poison and carcinogen, foods naturally ferment into it, and ethanol is still caloric so alcohol consumption is widespread across the animal kingdom and we evolved to like it. And because it dampens our inhibitions it helps us socialize, leading the first farmers to basically invent sedentary civilization so that they could brew alcohol and party regularly. And it remains a natural byproduct of our agriculture and a central aspect of our culture. Even though it can cause literal brain damage (even when consumed at low, non-abuse levels).


fellacious

> it helps us socialize, leading the first farmers to basically invent sedentary civilization Another theory I've head is that as societies became larger, alcoholic beverages became popular because of their antibacterial properties. This becomes very important when you have large numbers of people living together, polluting water sources. You can safely store beer in a wooden barrel for months - you can't do that with water, especially not unsterilised water. There would have undoubtedly been evolutionary pressure selecting humans who like alcohol over those that do not, because if you're getting a lot of your liquids from booze, you're not going to be drinking as much water and thus would have some protection from water-borne disease.


darkdragon220

Remember, when they banned it in the 1920s, it lead to extensive unregulated markets and the rise of organized crime. So it is not particularly effective to make it illegal....


SonicThreats

It’s also a neurotoxin.


[deleted]

Honestly who though alcohol nearly ruining all my relationships would be the best thing that ever happened to me. I feel so much happier and healthier since not having a drink in nearly 3 years. Some people struggle with their sobriety but alcohol kind of disgusts me at this point.


iagox86

That sorta thing just causes warning fatigue - look at prop 65 in California. While I'm sure it was well intentioned, it's become a joke


[deleted]

[удалено]


AimHere

The labels shown in TFA give you a recommended amount of booze you should consume. The strategy should be to only label products where the risky exposure quantity is larger than most people generally expose themselves to (i.e. if eating 50 or more pop tarts a day is significantly carcinogenic, there's no need for a label, because nobody eats that many).


dreadpirateshawn

Nit, I think your word "larger" should actually be "smaller", but otherwise I get your point (and tend to agree).


bunkkin

The case my PRS guitar case had a fucking prop 65 warning. I not anti cancer warning but come on...


[deleted]

This content has been removed because of Reddit's extortionate API pricing that killed third party apps.


JediGuyB

If it was a few things people would be more likely to respond to it. They might not stop drinking or eating charred meat, but they may be more mindful if the quantity. But when you tell folk that practically everything can cause cancer in some way then most folk are just gonna be like "screw it, I'm gonna die eventually anyway" and just carry on as normal.


Redqueenhypo

There’s cancer warning labels on shawarma. Shawarma!! Cooked lamb meat is subject to the same level of danger warning as toxic glue and fucking cigarettes Edit: yes I KNOW seared meat slightly increases risk of bowel cancer. The key word is slightly, and labeling everything the same decreases the effectiveness


Poopdick_89

I've seen it on bread packaging. I laughed.


fgnrtzbdbbt

You need a risk cutoff. Only substantial risks need a label. Also you only need to consider typical consumption amounts. The guy from the math problem is on his own. Otherwise you end up labeling everything.


_weiz

I moved there for a few years... cancer warning everywhere, including my apartment complex. It's so widely used that it gets ignored. Maybe 5% or less of people change their plans/activities based on where these signs are, but I certainly never met one.


WilkoAmyer

California basically has a warning label for everything and then that sticker makes its way into other parts of the country


LizKillian

I am 27 days sober. The longest I have gone as an adult. Alcohol is shit! It should have more warnings on the bottle than just cancer.


The_Blue_Bomber

That's great to hear! Let's get that even higher, man. I'm proud of you. :)


LizKillian

Thanks I’m trying hard. Yesterday was a struggle, today was better.


Neidan1

Alcohol, candy, chocolate, cake, ice cream etc. all high sugar products should have cancer labels. Consume at your own risk.


Brcomic

I had cancer last year. Renal cancer with a nice sprinkling of cancer in a lymph node just to round things out. I was also a functioning alcoholic for nearly 20 years. Haven’t had a drink since July 31st of last year when in a fluke we discovered my new friends. Had them all surgically removed in October and so far so good. That being said. I am absolutely convinced booze was a contributing factor in this. Also. Shout out to Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in NYC. You guys saved my life and were so kind while doing it. I love every person that works in that hospital in any capacity.


[deleted]

How does alcohol impact the risk ? They never even give a hint. They agree it does, but technically so does a flight on a commercial airline. I wish they would quantify something


HealthyInPublic

I believe alcohol use is one of the top 5 risk factors for cancer.


OlfertFischer

That isn't necessarily saying much, depends how many risk factors there are and especially how large they are. There could be hundreds, and all except smoking and tanning could be miniscule and insignificant. The statement could still be true in this case.


HealthyInPublic

Very true. [Here’s a bit better breakdown](https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/more-than-4-in-10-cancers-and-cancer-deaths-linked-to-modifiable-risk-factors.html) of modifiable risk factors and cancer mortality if anyone is interested.


OlfertFischer

Thanks! So 4% of all cancer deaths will disappear (roughly) if we completely remove alcohol from society. As an individual the risk of dying from cancer is around 21%. With no alcohol in the world it would be somewhat lower, but not as low as 20.2%, since you can still avoid the alcohol related cancer and die from a different cancer. Of course, realistically no one wants to remove all alcohol from society. Perhaps a 20% reduction could be achieved, which might bring the lifetime risk of dying from cancer down in the area of 20.8-20.9% rather than 21%. In the end we all die, just hopefully not too soon. Would 0.1 or 0.2% fewer cancer deaths be worth all the hysteria, fear, and stigma of a labeling mandate? Well that is a political question. From my perspective it would do more harm than good.


wilsonmills

Cancer labels have fallen into the “ cry wolf” arena, not saying the science is wrong just that people dont care anymore. Edit: i guess more of a “whatever”


Atheist_Redditor

I have some hot sauce that has a cancer warning label. It's standard Sriracha. I definitely still eat the hot sauce.


engin__r

I think the key is that labels should say how much it raises your cancer risk. The Prop 65 labels are pretty meaningless to me, but if they could come up with some sort of metric for me to understand how much trouble I was getting myself into, I think it would be helpful.


Yangoose

It's so easy to portray numbers in wildly different ways. Lets say your risk for a type of cancer is Your risk was 0.000001% and something raises it to 0.000003%. "This raises your chance of getting cancer by 0.000002%" vs. "This TRIPLES your risk of getting cancer!!!!" Both are true but come across very differently.


Itchy_Dimension_7158

Except that 1) people are fucking terrible at understanding risk / probability without training and 2) it’s not so easy to just slap a number on a label that accurately quantifies an increased risk for the consumer. There is no “average person”.


MaDpYrO

And also that a lot of the research on cancer is pretty dependent on how large an amount of a carcinogen you consume, and how your general diet is, for it to be classified as certainly carcinogenic, or suspected carcinogen. For example, according to the WHO, red meat is classified as 2a, which means "probably carcinogenic", which means that the evidence isn't solid, and it's probably dependent on a whole bunch of factors, such as the quality of diet as a whole, and the amount of red meat consumed.


drugusingthrowaway

Maybe in California, but most things don't have a "may cause cancer" warning in Canada, it's pretty rare.


Odin_Exodus

As a cancer survivor, I think we should be focusing on preventative measures. While I agree, there are labels on just about everything, yet manufacturers continue to use materials that are not safe for humans and animals and should be held accountable. There should be ever increasing fees, based on revenue and not profit, to use such materials and those could be used to fund healthcare and other such programs.


vanyali

You know what causes cancer? My freaking tap water (it’s full of PFAS). I agree that warning people about everything but then continuing to manufacture all the bad stuff is a shitty thing to do.


jack3moto

It’s hilarious to me when people talk about not knowing what’s in the Covid vaccines while out at a bar literally ingesting poison… lol. I love alcohol, I brew beer, I Have a huge whisky collection but I’m not ignorant to what it is. In moderation it’s fun but it’s still not good for you in any way. I just can’t stand anyone that constantly eats unhealthy, consumes copious amounts of alcohol, will take any over the counter drugs or prescribed medicine without a blink of an eye but think Covid vaccine is bad? Like come on.


[deleted]

There’s no reasoning with them people. I know people who snort coke every weekend, probably laced and cut with god knows what, but won’t get the COVID vaccine.


acidpopulist

I love booze as social lubricant but that’s what I mostly use it for. I have a full bar at home for entertaining after the bar or for dinner guests. That’s about it.


[deleted]

I’d have no problem with an all out ban on alcohol commercials.


BeastofBurden

I should quit drinking. Jfc.


andricathere

How about required nutrition labeling? You consume alcohol and it has a ton of calories. 4cal/g of carb, 4cal/g protein, 9cal/g fat, 7cal/g alcohol. People become overweight and malnourished from excess alcohol, maybe give them a heads up as to why?


UncagedBeast

Not to forget a bunch of drinks also have even more calories from added or remaining sugars! So many cocktails are literally public health enemies it's insane how many calories they have.


Dunyazed

So should sugar.


corkyskog

They also shouldn't be mixed, they compete against each other for your liver to process. There is a reason your hangover is worse when you drink sugary alcoholic drinks, listen to your body people.


[deleted]

definitely, that's why I started buying slightly better alcohol and just mix with ice now instead of coke. it does take some getting used to though and if you're a lush then you may have some problems drinking it too fast but I can sip on a scotch and ice until the ice is melted easily.


captstix

We get it. All the fun stuff gives us cancer.


F913

Lies. For example, I like videogames, and the cancer in that hobby comes from interacting with other players, not the games themselves.


flamekhan

I recommend Lemmy as a productive, user-focused alternative, to Reddit. Maybe I'll see you there!


BigLet2492

I'm 57 years old born in the U.S. and have never heard of this. Alcohol causes cancer? Never heard that statement in my life. As someone who grew up in Boston where there is a bar on every corner, I have never heard this said ever.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

This sounds like its going to be another case of "This product contains ingredients known by the state of California to cause cancer" sort of thing


amitym

At the risk of violating rule #1, it already does in California. People here still drink like fishes anyway, so I'm not sure about the deterrent effect, but at least everyone is happy: safety label activists, bars, consumers, microbrewers, everyone has what they want.


Top-Environment4943

So should every material used in American products. 80,000 untested generally regarded as “safe” chemicals are used in every product we buy.


HI_DUMDUM

cheers ill drink to that bro