dvd_72 said:
I don't see alchohol as the demon people sometimes make it out to be. I mean, if you ban the advertising of alchohol because, if drunk too much, it's unhealthy, then why not bann the advertising of junk food? I mean, look at the obesety that's plaguing the world.
Everything in moderation right?
Exactly.
OT: I've never viewed alcohol as very addictive. Short of alcoholics (which from what very little I know sounds more like a social addiction than a chemical one), alcohol addiction is rather rare (as a percentage of drinkers). Smoking on the other hand, almost every long-term smoker is addicted (I'd say every, but I'd assume that there
could be someone, somewhere, who for whatever reason isn't addicted).
So it is less about the negative effects of alcohol vs smoking, and more about the fact that smoking is an addiction, and alcohol consumption is most commonly just a socially accepted norm. I mean, sure, the negative effects can come into consideration in more dangerous substances (like how cocaine/heroine/etc can do severe permanent damage to your body and mind), but when the effects are so delayed and minimal that it is almost always a matter of internal choice, I don't think that anyone should have a say as to you using it.
And yes, I am aware that choice is most likely a social construct and that realistically speaking there in no real 'option'. The kind of choice I am talking about is more the individual choice perspective, where the 'choice' is actually a sum of the person (so it only exists as a 'choice' in terms of unknown variables and in comparison to a wider population). But what I mean is that with substances like alcohol, whether you drink or not is less about the substance than it is about you as a person. Smoking and the use of other addictive substances (like opiates) is more about the drug than the individuals' wants[footnote]Ooh ooh ooh! Nerd analogy! The spiderman symbiote, where it is apparently meant to exert some level of control over the individual. A symbiote may attach itself to a person, and magnify their aggression, or cause them to do horrible things. That person's actions are more a result of the outside influence (symbiote) than their own personality. Same thing with addictive substance use. Sure, you may use it once or twice as the result of peer pressure, or curiosity, but your ability to exert control over continued use has little to do with you, and most to do with what the substance (symbiote in the analogy) turns you into. And more gradual addictions, like cigarettes are more comparable to the Spiderman 3 symbiote, where it only has minimal initial effects, which further increase your dependency on it, which then makes it able to exert greater control. Obviously being a movie, Spiderman had to overcome it, but if it hadn't been a movie do you really think that would have happened? What's the chances he would've gone to the bell tower? What's the chances that it would have just given up? I mean, it just sat there and then crawled away. It could have easily re-attached indefinitely, and by the time spiderman could get it off its claws would've been too far into his mind and he wouldn't want it gone. Same thing with addictive substances, especially the more gradual ones like cigarettes. By the time you realise you are addicted, you're addicted (it sounds like a tautology, but it is an important tautology to state). And then when you're addicted, your addiction grows, making it harder and harder to shake it.[/footnote]. So really, banning the advertisments (and preferably having an incredibly restrictive distribution capability[footnote]Okay, this restrictive distribution is incredibly important in terms of human rights, it doesn't seem relevant to the topic, so I'll leave it at that, but if you'd like to know just quote me and ask, I'll be happy to expand on it[/footnote]) is a matter of protecting the populace[footnote]And no, don't play that "People can use it if they want, blah blah blah crap", it technically counts as protecting them from an outside threat, so saying we shouldn't protect each other from these addictive subtances is like saying you shouldn't protect people from school-shooters, or foreign assassins, or sociopathic murderers, etc[/footnote].
