Denormalisation of alcohol

[lazythursday]

Cultural norms around drinking have been developed over millennia, you can't legislate them into something new. Same the world over, every culture has it's drink or drug that forms a social cornerstone. S'humanity really. Mitigate the worst effects and that's about all you can do.

Really? Do we have the same cultural norms around drinking now as in the middle ages or the seventeenth century? Of course always alcohol has been drunk but I'd hazard a guess that the quantity and strength has gone up and down considerably according to the circumstances of the time and practices have varied between classes etc (and certainly between religions, the rise and fall of non-conformism must have had a big impact in certain communities). And the example of smoking shows how a drug's use can rise and fall, or change in acceptability in particular locations etc.

I really don't want to be painted as a prohibitionist on this thread. At the same time as enforcing the existing alcohol laws and bringing in new restrictions I'd legalise most other drugs within a legal framework too.

 

[killer b]

The suggestions that Maurice's proposed measures don't work are ridiculous - they do work. Of course prohibition, licensing restrictions etc can't stamp out use of a drug altogether - but it reduces it's use overall, even if not in all cases. The discussion shouldn't centre on whether the measures work or not, but what other effects they might have - which are substantial, and often quite negative.

However: the idea that the status quo is about right is, IMO, also ridiculous. We don't have it anywhere near right.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Do you drink, Maurice?

Not since 2009.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I've had you marked down as either a wind-up merchant or a twat - or both - ever since this. This thread really isn't doing anything to make me revise that opinion.

If the thread is making you angry enough to start rootling through files and hitting the search function, you might need to have a think about your relationship with booze.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Not since 2009.

And before that, if you don't mind me asking, what were your drinking patterns? I'm not probing for the sake if it, so you don't have to answer if you don't want. I'm just trying to get a grip on this whole "taste doesn't influence peoples' choice of drink" perspective you have.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

And before that, if you don't mind me asking, what were your drinking patterns? I'm not probing for the sake if it, so you don't have to answer if you don't want. I'm just trying to get a grip on this whole "taste doesn't influence peoples' choice of drink" perspective you have.

I drank quite a lot, and spent significant amounts on single malts and clarets that I firmly believed at the time were worth the difference. I would have been as annoyed as the real-ale drinking trainspotter by this thread. More so.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I drank quite a lot, and spent significant amounts on single malts and clarets that I firmly believed at the time were worth the difference. I would have been as annoyed as the real-ale drinking trainspotter by this thread. More so.

So what made you see the light regarding how brainwashed by advertising you were?

 

[Roadkill]

If the thread is making you angry enough to start rootling through files and hitting the search function, you might need to have a think about your relationship with booze.

Took you a while to think that one up, didn't it? No rootling needed anyway: I have a memory like an elephant, despite liking a beer. I'm not particularly angry, either: I just have limited tolerance for busybodies trying to interfere in how the rest of us enjoy ourselves. Oh well, I suppose there's nothing like the zeal of the converted.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

So what made you see the light regarding how brainwashed by advertising you were?

I had successfully stopped smoking several years ago using the Allen Carr method, and the parallels between nicotine and booze were too obvious to ignore.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I had successfully stopped smoking several years ago using the Allen Carr method, and the parallels between nicotine and booze were too obvious to ignore.

And what were the adverts that you felt were particularly responsible for influencing your choice of drink? Why not other adverts for Carling, or other such slop? Those are a lot more prevalent, no?

 

[rutabowa]

I really don't want to be painted as a prohibitionist on this thread. At the same time as enforcing the existing alcohol laws and bringing in new restrictions I'd legalise most other drugs within a legal framework too.

I don't think we get that choice in real life though... it would just be more laws against everything.

 

[killer b]

I wonder why companies spend so much on advertising if it doesn't work? Habit?

 

[Bonfirelight]

I had successfully stopped smoking several years ago using the Allen Carr method, and the parallels between nicotine and booze were too obvious to ignore.

Good marketing, that Allen Carr.

I'm all for it though, prohibition sounds like a laugh what with the bootlegging and Speakeasy's and what not. I can reinvent myself as Al Capone.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I wonder why companies spend so much on advertising if it doesn't work? Habit?

I guess it's to do with making people aware of the product. If you fancy trying something new then having seen an advert might make you try one drink over another. But no amount of advertising will keep you drinking something unless you actually like it.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

And what were the adverts that you felt were particularly responsible for influencing your choice of drink? Why not other adverts for Carling, or other such slop? Those are a lot more prevalent, no?

I said somewhere else that appellations are immensely powerful brands; the PR for claret has been going on for centuries. I decided that Bowmore Dusk was the best malt ever in the course of a tasting session at a specialist whisky shop - the sort of thing that is part of the marketing mix for any niche brand.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I said somewhere else that appellations are immensely powerful brands; the PR for claret has been going on for centuries. I decided that Bowmore Dusk was the best malt ever in the course of a tasting session at a specialist whisky shop - the sort of thing that is part of the marketing mix for any niche brand.

So do you believe your perception of how it tasted was actually affected by the marketing? Some sort of psychophysical (if that is the right word) response?

 

[killer b]

I guess it's to do with making people aware of the product. If you fancy trying something new then having seen an advert might make you try one drink over another. But no amount of advertising will keep you drinking something unless you actually like it.

I'm not sure if what makes us 'like' a drink is entirely down to taste though is it? Booze tastes rank the first time you drink it - what makes you choose to like, say, Stella over Kronenbourg? Guinness over Murphys? Advertising and marketing play a significant role in those choices, as the taste is indistinguishable.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

So do you believe your perception of how it tasted was actually affected by the marketing? Some sort of psychophysical (if that is the right word) response?

I think that addicts (which is to say, drinkers and smokers) 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.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

This is turning into a K&S discussion, or a drugs one, rather than a public policy debate, though. Perhaps I started it in the wrong forum.

 

[lazythursday]

I've read Allen Carr on alcohol too. He does make the point (perhaps one of the shakiest in the book) that alcohol really doesn't taste nice - children recoil from it, our first taste of alcohol is never nice, and it's a learned response as our body begins to associate the unpleasant taste with a pleasant feeling. He therefore goes on to ridicule the whole concept of fine wines, arguing that it's simply different flavours of a basically unpleasant taste, or something like that.

 

[YouSir]

I'm not sure if what makes us 'like' a drink is entirely down to taste though is it? Booze tastes rank the first time you drink it - what makes you choose to like, say, Stella over Kronenbourg? Guinness over Murphys? Advertising and marketing play a significant role in those choices, as the taste is indistinguishable.

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

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'm not sure if what makes us 'like' a drink is entirely down to taste though is it? Booze tastes rank the first time you drink it - what makes you choose to like, say, Stella over Kronenbourg? Guinness over Murphys? Advertising and marketing play a significant role in those choices, as the taste is indistinguishable.

I'd be willing to admit that people often associate sensations with memories that influence how that sensation is perceived. And in that respect I can kind of see how advertising may play a part in the experience of drinking, to the extent that advertising can influence our memories and associations of ideas with each other. What I can't accept is that the taste of one drink is indistinguishable from the other, or that preferences are not also formed by the individual taste of the drinker. This is absolute tosh.

 

[YouSir]

I've read Allen Carr on alcohol too. He does make the point (perhaps one of the shakiest in the book) that alcohol really doesn't taste nice - children recoil from it, our first taste of alcohol is never nice, and it's a learned response as our body begins to associate the unpleasant taste with a pleasant feeling. He therefore goes on to ridicule the whole concept of fine wines, arguing that it's simply different flavours of a basically unpleasant taste, or something like that.

Same applies to a lot of things though, as a kid I thought onions were rank, now I don't mind them. Doesn't mean I've brainwashed myself into eating them, tastes and taste buds mature.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I've read Allen Carr on alcohol too. He does make the point (perhaps one of the shakiest in the book) that alcohol really doesn't taste nice - children recoil from it, our first taste of alcohol is never nice, and it's a learned response as our body begins to associate the unpleasant taste with a pleasant feeling. He therefore goes on to ridicule the whole concept of fine wines, arguing that it's simply different flavours of a basically unpleasant taste, or something like that.

Yeah, he's shaky on lots and lots of things (especially matters of basic fact and grammar), and the thing about taste is more complex than he suggests, but the fundamental insight still holds.

 

[NoXion]

I think that addicts (which is to say, drinkers)

I think I've found your problem right here. On what basis can you legitimately claim that all or most drinkers are addicts?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I think I've found your problem right here. On what basis can you legitimately claim that all or most drinkers are addicts?

Because they drink. That's fundamental. I'd just edited to include smokers, as well.

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

 

[lazythursday]

I can remember my first ever drink of Stella Artois, which was in the Dove pub on Broadway Market in Hackney in approx 1994. I had never come across it before, and at the time it had a bit of an exclusive sort of branding. I thought it was very nice, if a bit strong - most lagers were way weaker than that then. Fast forward fifteen years and Stella has become wifebeater, premium strength lagers are the norm everywhere - has advertising not influenced that change in how people drink?

 

[rutabowa]

I think you could make some comparison to music... like people develop their music taste lots as they get older and like things that they previously would have thought were just noise, or boring or impenetrable or whatever. and things like album sleeves and back stories have some/a lot of influence in what music people enjoy. and some people just aren't into music at all, some quite violently against it.

 

[YouSir]

Because they drink. That's fundamental. I'd just edited to include smokers, as well.

So every one who drinks is physically or mentally reliant on it? As someone else said, the zealotry of the reformed.

 

[YouSir]

I can remember my first ever drink of Stella Artois, which was in the Dove pub on Broadway Market in Hackney in approx 1994. I had never come across it before, and at the time it had a bit of an exclusive sort of branding. I thought it was very nice, if a bit strong - most lagers were way weaker than that then. Fast forward fifteen years and Stella has become wifebeater, premium strength lagers are the norm everywhere - has advertising not influenced that change in how people drink?

I'd say the proliferation of Czech lagers has made that change more than anything. New cultural influences. Stella has always been piss mind.