Ban all advertising for alcohol, too, please

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

We should be actively warning about and discouraging the consumption of demerit goods. Alcohol, cigarettes, vapes, SSBs, ultra processed food all completely destroy the health of communities all around the world. Not just in the States, but also in both developed and developing countries. We've seen study after study after study that these do nothing but make us addicted to slop that shortens our lifespan and makes us unhappy.

But the organization that is offering this advice cannot even act in the 3rd largest country in the world by population because of """misinformation""" from covid.

WHO basically fully prevented the Ebola outbreak in Nigeria, and it did not affect my parents. If WHO didn't act, I probably wouldn't be alive right now. To think that people genuinely think that leaving it is good goes against every line of thinking I have used in my entire life.

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.

Can we do all petroleum products too?

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

Isn't this already common knowledge? No one is drinking alcohol because they think it's good for you.

People: drink alcohol to help them survive being exploited under capitalism

WHO: "best I can do is tell you that you're going to die sooner"

Also, I don't know if anyone's researched this, but I'm 99% sure the stress chemicals your body generates from being a wage slave and living paycheck to paycheck your entire life are far more carcinogenic than alcohol. Maybe that should come with a label too.

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

Wow! Finally! 🎉🎉 It's astonishing that it took so many decades. We knew, we always knew that alcohol causes cancer. Now we also know that the risk is significant from any amount. And of course, it's not just cancer.

Those labels, they really work. Like, the society to big extend quit smoking thanks to those labels.

Policies curbing smoking weren't popular at the time, people criticized them for being too much of an inconvenience and ineffective at the same time. But they really worked and our society became better and healthier because of them. Funny, how watching the debate about alcohol now, reading people's comment here, you can actually relive this experience now just years later. When people say "they should focus on X instead", and things like that, that's a form of denialism

Please no. Some of the bottles are so good looking. The cigarette warning are disgusting.

The thing is. Alcohol can be used in for example cooking. Cigarettes have no good purpose, nothing you can really do with them that has utility outside of direct consumption that exposes you to the full health risks.

And at that point I fear you're also diminishing the unique harm and danger of cigarettes which produce second hand smoke which exposes others, including kids to health dangers without their consent.

How about we slay the first demon here before starting to equate another lesser one with it? Most people do not have a risk of getting addicted to alcohol, nearly everyone has a risk with a few tries of getting addicted to nicotine and it's spreading like a plague among children with candy and sweets flavored cartridges for the poison that is e-cigs. This undoing a generation of progress.

It really does risk making more people dismissing the unique dangers and threat of nicotine and smoke products by equating the two and risks creating a DARE moment where the whole thing is just mocked by rising anti-science, anti-expert sentiment spurred on by capitalists eager to undo regulations. I mean things like this are catnip to people like RFK who want to torpedo evidence based science in favor of vibes and snake oil because it presents an in with your average person to criticize the health establishment over at least misplaced priorities.

Drinking on its own is a danger to the drinker. Only when done to excess does it endanger others. Smoking at all produces second-hand smoke and can encourage others to join an addictive behavior that is very, very hard to quit and will be a monkey on their back for years, decades after they stop whereas MOST humans can stop drinking alcohol with less ill effects than stopping daily consumption of caffeine.

Any amount of alcohol is a carcinogen and unhealthy, but at the same time we have to ask what level of risk is okay. Any amount of charred food cooked on charcoal is also a health risk for instance and can lead to exposure to carcinogens. The unique problems of cigarettes and nicotine were always impacts to others who didn't make that choice including children trapped with smoker parents as well as the addictive properties which left most users trapped or facing a hard fight to stop as well as bad behaviors by industry to hook people while they were young and down. Yes the alcohol industry also tries to get teens and young people to drink but nearly all of them can just stop after they leave college and go on to have a healthy life with zero or limited interactions with alcohol, you cannot say the same for someone who starts using nicotine and uses it heavily for even 6 months.

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.

Is there a way to trace big-pharma money to WHO decision makers? Have there been any reports on discovering such "flow"?

Isn't it obvious that all "medical advise" on addictive legal substances is pressure on a huge market to shift to psychotropic medication for which profitability is 100s of times more controllable?

The more they squeeze the population (nearly 30%) away from cigs, alcohol, and street drugs, the more they gain in anti-depressants. And there seems no effort what so ever to squeeze the street drug addict population away from anything, seriously!

The WHO just wants a piece of the pie, and the more they act like this the more likely you will see the US becoming best friends with WHO elite again. So the blackmail worked!