Denormalisation of alcohol

[NoXion]

Because they drink. That's fundamental.

So anyone who drinks on a regular basis is automatically an addict? You're wrong.

I'd just edited to include smokers, as well.

Why? They're different substances.

If you habitually take a habituating substance, the cap fits.

Addictions are habits, but not all habits are addictions.

 

[killer b]

That's nonsense, they all taste different. Only way to think otherwise is if you never, or rarely, drink.

I don't anymore, but when I was drinking I could never tell the difference (between those particular brands). Either way, it's close enough that preference must be influenced by something more than just flavour. Hence why beer producers spend huge amounts of cash on advertising & branding.

 

[YouSir]

I don't anymore, but when I was drinking I could never tell the difference. Either way, it's close enough that preference must be influenced by something more than just flavour. Hence why beer producers spend huge amounts of cash on advertising & branding.

You're wrong. You can make an argument about the influences of advertising and that's fair enough but if you can't tell the difference between Guiness and Murphys that purely reflects on you.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I think that addicts (which is to say, drinkers) are very good at telling themselves lies about why they want a substance, and that they pretend to themselves that they crave the delicious taste or the fragrant smoke, when their need is more basic. Advertising, branding, cultural reinforcement - all of these are part and parcel of reinforcing the story that there must be a delicious taste involved.

I'm still confused as to what the evidence was that finally convinced you that you were telling yourself a lie. It seems to me that your opinion regarding the taste of alcoholic drinks is a strategy to make drinking, as a whole, less appealing to yourself. Which is a perfectly understandable strategy for someone wanting to give up drinking, and one that I respect.

But to claim you have stumbled across some universal truth that should, as such, be imposed on others by law, is arrogant and patronising. It's extrapolating your own experiences on to other people in a way that is unjustified; you are assuming a position of superiority that is disrespectful of other peoples' capacity for making their own choices.

 

[killer b]

You're wrong. You can make an argument about the influences of advertising and that's fair enough but if you can't tell the difference between Guiness and Murphys that purely reflects on you.

What does it reflect?

 

[YouSir]

What does it reflect?

That you have an undistinguished pallet? Neither good nor bad but does mean you can't really judge. Most EDM sounds the same to me, but I wouldn't go around telling people there was no difference because I know I'm not the authority.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

What does it reflect?

What is your sense of smell like?

 

[killer b]

That you have an undistinguished pallet? Neither good nor bad but does mean you can't really judge. Most EDM sounds the same to me, but I wouldn't go around telling people there was no difference because I know I'm not the authority.

How about this then - what's making people prefer one of these brands over the other? http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...e-according-to-blind-taste-tests-9667567.html

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

How about this then - what's making people prefer one of these brands over the other? http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...e-according-to-blind-taste-tests-9667567.html

Taking three brands of mass-produced lager that are more-or-less designed to be indistinguishable, and then using that as evidence of all drinks being indistinguishable, is not a very good argument. You were given the example of Guinness vs Murphey's; you can't honestly tell me that they taste the same, can you?

 

[killer b]

Taking three brands of mass-produced lager that are more-or-less designed to be indistinguishable, and then using that as evidence of all drinks being indistinguishable, is not a very good argument.

That's not the argument I'm making.

 

[Sweet FA]

Advertising is a peripheral reason why most people smoke/drink/eat the brands they do? Advertising's only really for brand awareness? Real ale drinkers are a band apart; resistant to advertising, making choices based purely on taste?

There's some laughable bollocks being spouted on his thread

 

[killer b]

Advertising is a peripheral reason why most people smoke/drink/eat the brands they do? Advertising's only really for brand awareness? Real ale drinkers are a band apart; resistant to advertising, making choices based purely on taste?

There's some laughable bollocks being spouted on his thread

I think the article I posted above from the indie is instructive - when I drank, I enjoyed Budvar but eschewed Stella & Heineken as harsh-tasting chemical piss. In my memory, they taste quite different: science says otherwise.

 

[killer b]

There is, clearly, sometimes significant differences in flavour between different beers though, I hasten to add.

 

[Silas Loom]

My views on this - not the derail about whether people can really take the difference, but on making alcohol less attractive and less accessible - haven’t changed.

I’m bumping in the context of today’s smoking bill discussion, to see whether the consensus on Urban has shifted in favour of denormalising alcohol.

 

[MickiQ]

Smoking and drinking aren't the same thing, you can't drink second hand booze in the way you can breathe second hand smoke plus a modest amount of drinking can be beneficial whereas any smoking is bad for your health.
There are sound grounds for some regulation but I think basically the current rules are about right.

 

[Silas Loom]

Smoking and drinking aren't the same thing, you can't drink second hand booze in the way you can breathe second hand smoke plus a modest amount of drinking can be beneficial whereas any smoking is bad for your health.
There are sound grounds for some regulation but I think basically the current rules are about right.

The studies that show benefits in moderate drinking, even the ones that aren’t supported by booze interests, almost always have the same methodological flaw: they don’t take into account that teetotallers are quite unusual. Lots of them are former pissheads and quite a few are too poor to drink much: both of those correlate with ill health.

 

[Serge Forward]

Smoking and drinking aren't the same thing, you can't drink second hand booze in the way you can breathe second hand smoke plus a modest amount of drinking can be beneficial whereas any smoking is bad for your health.
There are sound grounds for some regulation but I think basically the current rules are about right.

You might not get second-hand booze but you might get killed by a drink-driver or battered by a drunk domestic abuser.

Don't get me wrong, I love my daily whisky intake, though I don't drink drive and am told I'm amiable/a sweetie/a big daft eejit/a fucking balloon when I've had a bit too much... but to ignore statistical evidence of road accident and DV figures (secondary effects) is a tad cavalier.

 

[kabbes]

It has become denormalised, has it not? Not amongst our generation, maybe. But Gen Z seem to barely touch a drop of the stuff.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

It's funny seeing Truss and pals standing up in support of smoking. Wish they were that libertarian when it comes to other substances. One suspects some big tobacco money flows in their direction.

 

[Raheem]

you can't drink second hand booze

Electronics, Cars, Fashion, Collectibles & More | eBay

Buy & sell electronics, cars, clothes, collectibles & more on eBay, the world's online marketplace. Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items.

www.ebay.co.uk

 

[Silas Loom]

It has become denormalised, has it not? Not amongst our generation, maybe. But Gen Z seem to barely touch a drop of the stuff.

My youngest (18) doesn’t drink anything like as much as I did at her age, but she still drinks quite a lot. Nights out for her social circle, which I don’t think is atypical, are always in the pub. And when she was at university, if only for a term, student union socialising seemed to be as booze-centric as it ever was. Which is quite surprising, considering how expensive drinks are and how stingy student financing is, these days.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It has become denormalised, has it not? Not amongst our generation, maybe. But Gen Z seem to barely touch a drop of the stuff.

A bit of Googling suggests a definite drop off but not an enormous one: Part 3: Drinking alcohol - NHS England Digital.

I wouldn't say that's a level where you'd call it denormalised. Maybe not drinking is a bit less weird seeming though.

 

[Pickman's model]

My youngest (18) doesn’t drink anything like as much as I did at her age, but she still drinks quite a lot. Nights out for her social circle, which I don’t think is atypical, are always in the pub. And when she was at university, if only for a term, student union socialising seemed to be as booze-centric as it ever was. Which is quite surprising, considering how expensive drinks are and how stingy student financing is, these days.

when i was at university the institution had something in the region of 10,000 students when i started and 20,000 when i finished. the bars had a combined capacity of perhaps 800. in the intervening years student numbers there have crept up to something like 40,000 while bar capacity has at best stayed the same - at least four bars have closed while three new ones have been acquired. although the su may still be packed, this doesn't mean that your typical student is drinking in the su, if anything the chances are they aren't.

 

[Winot]

The same strategy should be used for all drugs - don't make them illegal; educate as to risks; focus on harm reduction.

 

[Silas Loom]

The same strategy should be used for all drugs - don't make them illegal; educate as to risks; focus on harm reduction.

That’s much too broad brush. What about tolerance of advertising and sponsorship and branded packaging? What about duty levels and minimum ages for consumption? There’s quite a gap between fags and booze on all of those, as it stands, although all three of your criteria are met for both.

 

[Raheem]

That’s much too broad brush. What about tolerance of advertising and sponsorship and branded packaging? What about duty levels and minimum ages for consumption?

Those are examples of harm reduction strategies, shoorly?

 

[Silas Loom]

Those are examples of harm reduction strategies, shoorly?

Yes, but applied with markedly different levels of aggression. So it’s not really “the same strategy for all drugs”: the devil is in the detail.

 

[RevolutionSound]

Smoking and drinking aren't the same thing, you can't drink second hand booze in the way you can breathe second hand smoke plus a modest amount of drinking can be beneficial whereas any smoking is bad for your health.
There are sound grounds for some regulation but I think basically the current rules are about right.

There are no physical health benefits from moderate drinking. That has been debunked.

 

[Sue]

It has become denormalised, has it not? Not amongst our generation, maybe. But Gen Z seem to barely touch a drop of the stuff.

Most of the 20 somethings I work with either don't drink (too busy mainlining Huel ) or drink very moderately indeed. I get the impression they reckon anyone having more than two drinks = pretty much an alcoholic.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Most of the 20 somethings I work with either don't drink (too busy mainlining Huel ) or drink very moderately indeed. I get the impression they reckon anyone having more than two drinks = pretty much an alcoholic.

I wish BB2 had got that WhatsApp, just back from a two week holiday with her (aged 20) and our booze bill was 1/3 up on what it would have been had she not been there...



tbf her partner rarely drinks anything and when they do it's no more than 2 small voddies and they're done. Fucking lightweight.