top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 187 points 3 years ago (9 children)

The fact that wine and beer bottles are exempt from those Nutrition Facts labels is utter nonsense.

If people knew how much sugar and calories are in their drink maybe they would think twice

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    I was drinking a while claw with my mother-in-law, and reflected that 100 calories was pretty good.

    She responded she preferred her normal vodka sodas because they have 0 calories...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    There are nutrition labels on alcohol in Europe, but people there drink as much as here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Europe drinks way more alcohol than North America

    Excerpt from the article:

    If you feel that Europeans drink a lot, your hunch is correct: people across the continent consume more alcohol than in any other part of the world. Each year in Europe, every person aged 15 and over consumes, on average, 9.5 litres of pure alcohol, which is equivalent to around 190 litres of beer, 80 litres of wine or 24 litres of spirits. That’s according to the 2021 European health report by the World Health Organization (WHO).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 74 points 3 years ago* (7 children)

    Meanwhile cannabis beverages are required to have:

    -Nutrition facts including calories, sugar, etc.

    -Gigantic yellow warning with random health warning (e.g., don't use if pregnant)

    -Huge red stop sign cannabis leaf logo

    -KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN

    -Big pain in the ass plastic childproof thing

    None of these required on a can of beer.

    From a harm reduction perspective, it's a massive failure. Many cannabis beverages have very low nearly zero calories, sugar-free. For your physical health they are almost certainly less harmful than alcohol and I know many people would enjoy them as an alternative to alcohol.

    We have faced a similar failure in harm reduction strategy regarding vaping versus tobacco. I think in both cases it's a result of vested interests (tax revenue, lobbying, don't know) trumping what is best for people.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    The way Canada has handled cannabis legalization is embarrassing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago*

    To who? Because we're still the only country with it fully legalized for recreational use. I fail to see how that's embarrassing at all.

    We used to have weird rules on alcohol too, and just like those, cannabis rules have been getting better as time has gone on. You can't expect a world first system to be perfect right out of the gate.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 65 points 3 years ago
    [–] 45 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I would like a ban on advertising, too.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Because it would be weird reading that smoking alcohol is dangerous for pregnant women.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (3 children)
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 20 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    And sugar. Off topic a bit, but my addiction is sugar and some reminders might make the occasional difference.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 17 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Because alchol sellers aren't widely considered as flat out evil as cigarette makers, meaning that they can still realistically grease the wheels of power with dump trucks full of money.

    I'm sure cigarette makers would love to the do the same thing, but no politician is dumb enough to risk taking "campaign contributions" from people who are widely considered to be the scum of the earth. Alcohol makers still have a level of respectability that lets them get away with it.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    no politician is dumb enough to risk taking “campaign contributions” from people who are widely considered to be the scum of the earth.

    And yet they'll accept campaign assistance from foreign and domestic oil companies:

    https://canadians.org/analysis/when-big-oil-intervenes-canadian-politics-it-does-so-foreign-money-and-huge-scale/

    https://canadians.org/media/new-report-reveals-pervasive-influence-big-foreign-oil-canadian-politics/

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 7 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Not really equivalent. Smoking permanently leaves all kind of nasty shit in your lungs and causes cancer. Also very addictive, making moderation physically difficult (alcohol can also be addictive but not to the same extremes). Alcohol in moderation isn't really an issue. Pushing it more can give your liver a bad time, but as long as you give it a break before the point of disease it can bounce right back.

    There is a societal problem especially in the UK in that it's seen as a sort of matter of pride to throw moderation out of the window and get as wasted as possible, but I have my doubts that graphic health warnings will do much about that. Either way it's more an effect of society ignoring and sometimes even shaming moderation (how many times have you been shamed for going home before you fall over on a work's night out) than the alcohol itself.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 3 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)
    load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    I wholly agree with the author of this article, but implementing something like this will meet a lot of resistance. Let's not forget that cigarettes are a relatively new phenomenon, whereas alcohol is something we've consumed as a species since prehistoric times. There are a lot of cultural, social, and historical ties to the use of alcohol that people won't let go easily and will make any attempt to reduce alcohol consumption an uphill battle.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Alcohol is a literal fucking toxin

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I always thought the hypocrisy between alcohol and cannabis packaging is ridiculous. If cigarettes and cannabis need to be heavily restricted in terms of having simple, plain packaging with health warnings, anything for sale that can cause health issues should be subject to the same restrictions.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›