this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
260 points (98.9% liked)

World News

38987 readers
1838 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don't think any recreational drugs should be branded or advertised. It should be very factual what you are getting and that's it. I think tobacco should still be available from tobacconists only, which can be state run because it's unlikely to be profitable otherwise. I'm for complete legalisation of everything but I think the smoke free generation is a great and noble idea.

It conflicts but I'm not a machine ,I see that tobacco is the most readily available addictive substance in the world, responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and I can just thumbs up a law that removes it as an opportunity without impacting those who are addicted and don't want to quit.

[–] GR4VY@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Caffeine is the most readily available addictive substance in the world, I think.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's "addictive" in the sense that you can develop tolerance, cravings, and withdrawal symptoms, but I've never heard of anyone being sent to rehab because their coffee habit was wrecking their life. Even pure caffeine just isn't potent enough to hijack your brain's reward system the way harder drugs can.

IMHO the word "addiction" really only applies when you feel so compelled to keep engaging in a problematic behavior that you can't stop even when you know it's hurting you.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think any recreational drugs should be branded or advertised.

Wine snobs, beer snobs, whisky snobs, and weed snobs would really hate that. And sommeliers would be having panic attacks.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well all those snobs are suckers for marketing, it's the process they are enjoying the fruits of not the label.

But I'd envision a world where you could buy cocaine and just have a list of the ingredients and strength, I don't need Johnny Walker White to be pushing it. Just have it available if people want it.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Are you really gonna argue that all whiskies, wines, etc. taste alike and that anyone who says otherwise is just a sucker? I don't even like wine but I can tell a red from a white with almost 100% accuracy.

Actually if you go with the original statement that drugs should just be generically labeled, it's saying all beer, wine, and liquor should just be labeled "alcohol". Can you imagine someone going to a fancy Italian restaurant and being happy when the only thing on the wine list is just "alcohol"?

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not what I argued at all but your point about a fancy restaurant misses the point twice.

I'm saying it's not the label it is the process, it isn't red or white by some company, it's the grape in a cask for how long. It's not alcohol it's the right combination of water, hops and wheat brewed the right way. I'm saying that we shouldn't have Philip Morris Nose Candy when we legalise we should have no branding no advertising "80% cocaine" and a list of what it is cut with.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You clearly don't know shit about how alcohol is made if you think describing a process that might be virtually identical across dozens or hundreds of brands is adequate to convey the level of detail that consumers use to make purchasing decisions.

For a lot of brands, the process is blending other products to create a specific flavor profile. There is literally no process to describe beyond "the blenders combine things until they find a blend that tastes the way brand X is supposed to taste." How do you propose to describe such a process without brands? And no, they can't just describe the individual inputs, because things like wine naturally vary from year to year even with identical processes, which means blends need to use different ratios to get the same flavor for each batch.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I was specifically talking about illicit recreational drugs you've clearly steered the conversation in a direction where you feel comfortable being indignant. Alcohol being rolled back to that level is not an option in reality, for drugs it is.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't acknowledge a distinction between alcohol and "drugs", aside from a purely legal and historical one. "Recreational drugs" absolutely includes alcohol in my vocabulary.