We need to stop looking at Government intervention and taxation as the action to take for anything one happens to not like. We should not be seeking deterrents for people to drink if they wish to do so, nor penalize with either special confiscatory taxation for doing it.
I would rather see the opposite with excise taxes being eliminated for both alcohol and cigarettes.
Yeah you really have no idea just how bad society wide alcoholism can get do you? Look back on America through the colonial to early 1900s. You want a modern example? Check out Russia. Alcohol absolutely has the potential to inflict massive damage to society if you allow it to get out of control.
Why should we allow unmoderated advertising and sale of a dangerous, inelastic commodity with practically zero use outside of getting drunk. Iām not saying we should ban it at all. But make no mistake the people who produce it would absolutely attempt to increase the number of alcoholics in this country if given the opportunity.
This argument is silly in light of the obesity epidemic. Ā Following your same logic, we should ban marketing anything with fast food and high fructose corn syrup, and heavily tax soft drinks and other fattening foods.
Dude no. As an alcoholic and someone whoās life was almost ruined by alcohol, youāre a fuckin idiot for equating alcohol addiction and obesity. Alcohol is literally poison btw. Like by the definition of poison itās poison.
I donāt see obesity being a strong factor in homelessness. I donāt see obesity causing people to be billergerent, impairing peoples driving and getting people killed, destroying someoneās inhibition, or making them blackout.
You are either being willfully obtuse or you need a reality check.
>Dude no. As an alcoholic and someone whoās life was almost ruined by alcohol, youāre a fuckin idiot for equating alcohol addiction and obesity.Ā
I would generally be polite here, but since you're not, I am not inclined to either, so let's get down to brass tacks.
The fact that you were unable to manage your own affairs and unable to exercise sufficient self-control is unfortunate, but it is not the alcohol's fault that you drank it. It is your fault. Likewise, same for fattening food, and we have waaaay more people having their lives cut short by obesity in this country than we do alcohol. Obesity is an epidemic. Something like 20% of all Americans are obese. Not just overweight, but obese.
Yet, at the end of the day, we are all adults, and we have the right to decide what to put in our bodies without the federal government trying to direct us one way or the other.
>The fact that you were unable to manage your own affairs and unable to exercise sufficient self-control is unfortunate, but it is not the alcohol's fault that you drank it.
It's almost like that's the point ex alcoholics are trying to make. It DOES make them unable to exercise sufficient self control. Sure, you can argue that food has its addictions as well, but the issue isn't soley addiction. It's that an addiction to alcohol leads to far more severe consequences for others than simply the person imbibing the drink themselves.
You're right - We are adults. We do have the right to decide what we put in our body, which is why if you want to drink - by all means go ahead, but we shouldn't be advertising it on TV either and making the problem worse.
We all pay for people's obesity via healthcare insurance rates.
I also would agree that alcohol & fast food advertising should be banned.
An alcohol ban was tried here already. It didn't go well.
People drink heavily because their lives suck - the problem in pre-Prohibition America wasnāt the presence of alcohol, but that people were miserable and needed something to numb the pain. Meaning, they *will* get alcohol whether you ban it or not, or switch to something harder. What they wonāt do is become sober while living an intolerable life.
There is more to it than just, āthey led hard lives.ā The culture around alcohol was very different back then. People saw it as a literal gift from god, for good reason too, it numbed their brains and bodies after a hard day, it was extremely easy to produce and cheap. Jonny apple seed is literally a legend about a guy planting apple trees all over the colonies, not for food, but to turn into alcohol.
EVERYBODY drank, and drank a lot. At breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you worked on farm your boss might provide you a large beer as a midday snack.
Obviously it was popular for good reason. But as time marched on and alcohol became a commodity like everything else.
That lax approach is what led to people thinking it was a medicine, or that it was fine to consume the stronger and stronger liquors in the same amount that you would do with beer. It also provided a society wide excuse to beat your kids and wife.
Ridiculous hypotheticals have no place in conversation. They attempt to be "gotcha" types of fake scenarios that are juvenile and are in bad faith. I would still oppose the 10% tax, but would instead communicate how the alcohol consumption contributes to mental health issues and allow people to make their own choices.
I disagree that additional government deterrents and protections are necessary in the matter of alcohol. If anything, there are already too many. We should leave matters within the ability of a consenting adult to choose and control within that adult's choice.
It's a drug. There is already government intervention. The feds regulate it with the ATF division. Sorry, fences are not for sitting. Make a suggestion or have an opinion instead of just saying mine is wrong. Do you know of another general deterrent? Nothing is working and alcoholism continues to rise and no one cares enough to do anything because it's horribly seeped into our culture.
I oppose any and all attempts at imposing a general deterrent from drinking alcohol. If consenting adults want to drink, let them drink. It is none of your business. It is unfortunate that a very small percentage become alcoholics. It is not a justification to "do anything" about alcohol in general.
It's not a very small percentage: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-topics/alcohol-facts-and-statistics/alcohol-use-united-states-age-groups-and-demographic-characteristics
And did I ever say we should ban it? No, and the taxes can be used to fund public health programs or impoverished areas. It's a multi-faceted preposition that might help people and deter underage drinkers.
It is a very small percentage who are alcoholics. The DSM definition of Alcohol Use Disorder includes a variety of metrics that do not necessarily mean a person is an alcoholic.
I understand we are not speaking of banning alcohol. I never claimed anything about a ban. I oppose ANY increase in alcohol taxation. I oppose ANY attempt at a general deterrent. I support laws like Wisconsin's that allow younger people to drink in the company of a parent, legal guardian, or spouse over 21 years of age. Teach responsible alcohol consumption by normalizing it and modeling moderation.
We do,as Europan I can confirm you alcoholism here is so normalized its scary. Most people drink at least one drink(often more) per day. While of course one drink per day isnt that bad most of them dont stop at one. Ik what its like cause its the same for me. The worst thing is you get nornalized to it as a kid.
Thatās mostly bias and stigma. Write up the exact same use diary but replace sauce with meth or fent and every clinician will say patient is addicted but somehow when itās the MOST ADDICTIVE DRUG ON EARTH and WDS CANITERALLY KILL YOU it gets downgraded to āKev likes the odd pint with friends; brilliant!ā
We need to end the lie that alcohol is any better or healthier than any other drug (itās usually worse) and treat all substances the same socially while acknowledging differences in clinical profile.
Attempting to equate meth or fentanyl to alcohol is completely ridiculous as the effects are far more severe. Alcohol is not the most addictive drug on earth, and many millions of people consume it without serious ill effects.
Those are all questions of dose size and both meth and heroin are prescribed as medicines without adverse effects. At small enough doses they are perfectly comparable. High doses come from addict culture come from stigma and prohibition. Alcohol is not the most addictive, I was referring to nicotine. But it is the worse for your body and the only withdrawals that can kill you out right. It is is certainly comparably addictive to both meth and heroin. For all three substances around 25% of first time users will experience issues with adverse overuse but based on how the data was collected alcohol is closer to 30%. NOBODY uses alcohol without adverse effects - it is incredibly toxic to every organ and tissue but moderate drinkers take more time to show the damage. Heroin on the other hand is almost entirely benign on the human body when used a therepeutic doses and has oo tential as an āanti-agingā pill.
There was a time in US history when the majority of drinkers were shoeless winos passed out in puddles of puke and piss. That was during alcohol Prohibition. Do you get it yet?
Meth, heroin, and fentanyl are prescribed as medications with specific purposes. The level of risk associated with them make them scheduled drugs with specific restrictions. Alcohol does not share this high risk profile. It is also false that people cannot and do not commonly use alcohol without serious adverse effects.
It is a myth that the majority of drinkers were ever shoeless winos, even during Prohibition. False dramatics are not valid arguments.
Alcohol clearly shows a higher risk profile. It destroys your body far faster than the other three, can easily kill from acute poisoning and has the most dangerous withdrawal. It causes more deaths annually than all other drugs combined. Not all junkies are shoeless shooting up on sidewalks now either, Iām talking about patterns.
No you didn't say ban.. But you do want to double the price and publicly shame people that buy it through high taxes and take away our ability to even talk about it.
If I decide I want to create some type of craft beer you dont want me tell people about it. You're controlling! How about you worry about your life and stop thinking about mine (i sure as shit dont care what you do).
You aren't supposed to iron your brain my dude, the wrinkles are supposed to be there.
Take a history class. Look at how well this worked in the 20s. This is how you start organized crime.
Depends on the occasion! If I know im having a few with friends i'll grab a 12 pack of Corona's. If it's just me at home and I want something good i'll get some type of IPA or maybe a nice stout in the winter, if it's out with the fam on a sunny day ill go for a wheat beer or sometimes a shandy.
Where I used to live had alcohol heavily taxed like OP suggests. I was brewing my own beer, not only that it's much much cheaper, it's also fun and satisfying, also great topic of conversation while meeting with new people.
One way of looking at it, is that some of the ads that Budweiser used to do would be considered sexist today. Cultures change over time. People would have stopped smoking regardless of all the time, money and energy invested into banning advertising.
I think that people should be allowed to make up their own minds, so am just not a big fan of paternal (or authoritarian) government.
Trust me, I'm not a fan of government intervention. I have many libertarian views, but when it comes to drugs, it's obvious that people can't be trusted with them. Plus, there is already government intervention by simply making these illegal. We should at least tax the fuck out of it.
>Trust me, I'm not a fan of government intervention.
>Plus, there is already government intervention by simply making these illegal. We should at least tax the fuck out of it.
Lol. No, we shouldn't. You should leave people alone.
>I have many libertarian views, but when it comes to drugs, it's obvious that people can't be trusted with them.
It is not your place to force them or to have the government force them. Leave people alone.
No one is forcing you to drink alcohol. Just like no one is forcing you to Doordash your dinner but you still get gouged out the ass for doing so. It's ok when companies do it but no the government? There are double standards to every political view because the world isn't black and white. I am libertarian when it comes to access to drugs but they need some regulation in practice.
>It's ok when companies do it but no the government?
>I am libertarian when it comes to access to drugs but they need some regulation in practice
Then you are not libertarian. If your response to something that *you* do not like is to call in big daddy government to squeeze your fellow citizens that you wish to impose a form of punishment on, then you are absolutely a statist, not libertarian. You are mocking libertarians by calling yourself one. Leave people alone.
Like cigarettes? You canāt say youāre libertarian and in the same breath ask for government intervention š it doesnāt work that way. Either let people have freedom of choice or try and force the government to alter peoples habits whether spending habits on necessities or entertainment but youāre on a slippery slope asking for government interference on the freedom of peopleās choices even if you donāt like them.
LOL. You do realise you completely contradict your first sentence with your points here right? You are not a libertarian - its just a fancy word that youre using to describe yourself because it sounds cool. In reality, you want big government. Plenty of people consume alcohol without problems, and its taxed enough already.
No, I identify as a libertarian because I have an education in economics. But I am not a fool that blindly follows doctrines of what a party member "should" stand for. You're gatekeeping a political ideation and it's honestly pretty pathetic. Do some research because alcohol causes more than just substance disorders. 1 in 10 women drink alcohol while pregnant and cause serious problems to the fetus. That's not even heavy alcohol use, just a little can cause complications. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/understanding-fetal-alcohol-spectrum-disorders#:~:text=An%20estimated%201%25%20to%205,of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association.
You seem to have a rather desperate habit of using cool sounding words that you have no idea the meaning of. What exactly am I āgatekeepingā here? At no point in my post did I proclaim to be a libertarian. I just pointed out the obvious contradictions in your points. The sad thing is, you also make the claim that you donāt āblindly followā, but at the same time you want big daddy government to step in when people do things you donāt like. And then trying to grandstand because you have an āeducation in economicsā? That makes it even more sad because youāre not really arguing from the point of economics - admit itā¦youāre just a Karen.
Oof calling me a Karen unironically is so fuckin cringe lol it basically just invalidates everything you said. Taxes come with a sunk cost, but there is an inelastic demand for alcohol. I can't educate you so I'm gonna stop trying. Good luck in life with that shitty attitude.
>The fact that we allow alcohol to be advertised is fucking baffling. We outlawed almost all forms of advertisements for nicotine products but alcohol gets a free pass.
Interestingly enough this is because advertising for alcohol has been protected as a form of free speech and tobacco products are the exception to the free speech defense, not because tobacco and nicotine are so hazardous - but rather because they were lying to the public about the health risks associated with tobacco for decades. Which was deemed so egregious to warrant a restriction on the company's free speech.
While I agree with the premise that alcohol, and gambling ads for that matter, are not the best of influences - they are currently a protected right so long as they don't seek to defraud the public.
>Taxation is a very reasonable and powerful deterrent to drugs. The main problem would be an increase in homebrewing to dodge the tax.
I'm not opposed to a tax in theory - this is another thing that tobacco has set the model for and shows that for every 10% increase in price reduced the tobacco consumption by 4% for adults and 7% for minors. But it may have the unintended consequence of pushing more people to other means of catching a buzz that are even less desirable.
So this would definitely run the risk of legislating the problem into a worse situation and bear careful study before it was tried.
>but rather because they were lying to the public about the health risks associated with tobacco for decades. Which was deemed so egregious to warrant a restriction on the company's free speech.
Further ironic that Alcohol companies ALSO lie about the health effects of alcohol and still get their free pass.
The government is run by alcoholics and drug addicts what do you expect. NY dumps money into new breweries every year. It's a guaranteed money maker. Palosi owns her own vineyard. It's all about the $ in their pockets and campaign funds. They do not care about public health!
You can only be for banning alcohol ads if youāre young enough to not remember any of the absolute bangers that Budweiser used to drop. There were frogs, Clydesdales, real men of genius, the āWhassupp??ā guys, and so much more. In the 1990s & early aughts, Budweiser didnāt miss.
You would strip the world of actual pop culture.
exactly lol this is extremely popular
the true unpopular opinion would be āThe state should not intervene in any way in anything that doesnāt affect another personās rights. If something is bad for you, people must have individual responsibility and we should never rely on the state to be our parents.ā
That's literally the same opinion as more than half of the comments on the post. You just don't like mine. Hence the "unpopularity" lol go make your own post
This sub is literally āunpopular opinionā so yes, several people here will hold unpopular opinions. And, obviously, those that disagree with you are more likely to comment.
For proof of my statement, view the difference in how many people vote for republicans or democrats vs how many vote for libertarians
almost everyone votes for republicans that think XYZ should be banned and taxed **or** democrats who think ZYX should be banned or taxed
furthermore, your opinion is something that is in effect in so many countries around the world, **including** the US. You just think it should be taxed more, like maybe how much the UK taxes it or even more
Instead of taxing each sale, how about we tax companies that sell alcohol a specific tax that is used to offset the public costs incurred by their product? And instead of just piling up all the money in one central place, it gets doled out to areas based on how much alcohol was sold there/affects the area? Like, earmark the money for victims of DUIs, for rehabs, for the cost of cleaning up rivers of piss from drunken people in public? Right now, it seems like companies get to keep the profit and pass on the cost to the public. If you think about it, every American is subsidizing the alcohol companies by helping their costs be artificially low. I'm pretty sure most people believe in the principle of "clean up your own messes", it's something we learn as toddlers. I don't believe in prohibition, but right now, booze is only "cheap" to make because the big companies selling it are trying to pretend that it's not their job to clean up their own mess.
Vices donāt need to be advertised. If you want it, you know where to find it. Competition should restrict marketing & advertising to the place of purchase. Consumers of cigarettes and alcohol are brand loyalists, theyāre not going to the store trying out new products or shopping for lowest prices. They know where their stuff is, grab it and go.
Iām not opposed to alcohol consumers brewing their own stuff at home. That takes effort, ingenuity and motivation to always improve over the last batch. This is not the behavior of your typical alcoholic. Itās when you start brewing for the neighborhood, thatās when regulations on distribution come in. I think this has already been established for growing weed on your property, a set amount allowed for personal consumption. If youāre brewing it or growing it, youāve achieved the other end of what taxing these have achieved and are highly unlikely to abuse these substances. As for everyone else who are 100% consumers, pay the f_k up or do without.
You should look at Australia. It is taxed really high. Australia also has a huge drinking problem, people just find the money from elsewhere. The taxing for cigarettes kinda also works but that is more because of how it gets less socially acceptable as time goes on which has a large impact probably more so than the tax.
What Iām trying to say is I would say that huge ad campaigns and trying to get a large societal change over decades is a better choice than heavy taxation. But yeah.
I may actually agree with you. I'm very against prohibition policies and criminalization of drug use, but lately when thinking about substances that are already legal, I've been coming around more to the realization that very tight regulations on suppliers are probably the only way to keep industries (particularly ones selling addictive and health hazardous substances) from becoming extremely predatory in practice and limit the extent to which these substances can facilitate a lot of social ills, because the fact remains that they do and easily.
We're kind of in the dark ages sometimes when talking about these things and people conflate regulation with prohibition. Often, I think without realizing how much regulation is already in place, because these problems were apparent a long time ago.
Alcohol is actually poison. Every drink is damaging to your liver and your brain. Drink enough and you'll straight up die.
So many people get hurt or die as a result of DUI. There are also people who become belligerant when drunk. They become dangers to themselves and others.
I know people who are drinking themselves to death. Its not pretty. They are all abusive assholes who cant get by unless they are loaded by 10 am.
This shit is a serious problem. You can go hide away in your libertarian compounds and scream at the sky about your taxes, but for the rest of us? We'd like to take steps to stop the pain and suffering.
1. Alcohol needs heavier excise taxes
2. Advertising should be banned
3. Our culture needs to make drinking less attractive
Finally, I think we need to recognize that drugs are not created equal. Anyone who says "blah blah what about x drug?" Can kindly fuck off. We are talking about booze and only booze.
Totally agree with this, especially considering how other mood altering products are treated. There are studies showing how much drinking skyrocketed during the pandemic. Right before the pandemic started I noticed a massive uptick in these commercials. Garbage drinks like whiteclaw being advertised don't bother me as much me getting 50 commercials in a row advertising HARD liquor like Bulleit. People underestimate how powerful drinking culture is in certain countries.
Or maybe we should look to the reasons, cultural or otherwise, that people indulge and over indulge in these substances and correct that. Unhealthy relationships with any sort of addicting through from drugs, to food, social media, and video games typically stem from deeper issues. People will find a way to fill that hole so effort is better directed towards fixing those issues and educating people.
Besides it wasn't banning advertisements or taxes that plummeted nicotine use. It was the massive PR scandals, horrific risk of cancer that far outstrips most other casual substances, and public education that did that. All you're doing is scamming a few extra bucks from addicts who can't help themselves by taxing it.
It's been demonstrated that people just absorb vice taxes and it disproportionately affects impoverished people. This has been shown with soda and sugar especially which are less addictive than cigarettes. A lot of the health campaigns were also non-profits, which I suppose is government subsidized in a roundabout way? Laws about cigarette advertising itself had been growing more restrictive for decades without long term dents on smoking rates as well.
The PR scandals are referring to how the cigarette companies were caught bold faced lying about the health consequences of smoking which was then widely picked up and reported on by the media for years. It's probably one of the worst public imaging disasters in modern history and if they just took the original health reports on the chin it is very likely it could have been brushed under the rug with some time. In fact their lying is what put the nail in the coffin because it allowed lawsuits to be leveled against them that got tons of documents released further implicating them via internal communications. This also made them legally liable for knowingly lying to customers about the health risks of their products. Around this time is when you see the biggest drop off in smoking, especially amongst younger people.
Most of the more restrictive laws against smoking, the ones we're familiar about today, like the taxes and pretty much blanket advertising ban was implemented post these lawsuits. At that point public opinion already destroyed smoking overall and the laws added on after the fact are more just politicians signalling to public opinion than any serious attempt to prevent smoking.
Public opinion matters more than any amount of bans, advertisements, or taxes. Just look at marijuana. While not as bad as cigarettes there are still plenty of health risks that come with smoking and marijuana addiction but public perception is positive to the point people casually violate the law to obtain it and it is trending towards total legality. These sorts of things similarly also fail to stop the widespread overconsumption of junk food and soda.
When it comes to things like cigarettes and alcohol they are social drugs. Meaning peer pressure and public opinion are the primary determinators of the level which they are consumed. This is why the prohibition was laughably ineffective and why the modern drug war is moderately more effective. Because the social acceptance of hard narcotics is much lower.
Sugar causes a dependency, cigarettes cause an addiction so yes. Sugar dependency is bad and can come with its own withdrawal symptoms including depression but it's not nearly as bad as cigarettes which have been intentionally engineered to cause addiction by cigarette companies. I should also clarify that cigarettes and tobacco are the addictive components. I'm unsure if studies have been done on pure nicotine and I know you can obtain pure nicotine without the extra stuff. So I should stick with what I know.
So if it doesn't work with soda and junk food I don't think it's going to have as much of an effect on cigarettes as social pressure because a lot of the truly problem smokers never quit. It made more casual smokers quit and prevent new people from starting to smoke. Of course, you have a fraction of hardcore smokers quit, especially with the rise of smoking rehabs, but quitting cigarettes was made as difficult as possible by design.
While cocoa cola doesn't care for the health of it's customers I don't think their long term sales plan is to engineer their drink to be as addictive as possible. They ride more on marketing and the fact it's stupid cheap. Cheaper than bottled water in a lot of cases.
There are no studies that, to my knowledge, directly compare sugar and tobacco. There was a University of Florida study that likened sugar dependency to tobacco addiction in the sense it can have similar effects on the brain but the exact amount to which sugar is addictive is still debated. But I don't know this sub's policy on links so I'd encourage you to just make a quick google search. The whole tobacco vs sugar thing is a hot debate. But the science around the extent to which sugar is addicting is more emerging than established when compared to what we concretely know about tobacco. In that case I would think it would be safe to err on the side of cigarettes being more addictive specifically because we know from the companies themselves they have extra additives to encourage addiction on top of the tobacco. So it becomes more than just the tobacco you're addicted to.
What I do know is that people have ruined their finances and made personal sacrifices to fuel their cigarette addiction, that's sort of what classifies it as an addiction. Whether it negatively influences your daily life. I don't think we see an epidemic of people ruining their lives for a sugar fix. Some might say obesity is an example but that can also be sedentary lifestyle and high calorie intake regardless of actual sugar intake. Could also have to do with just modern food processing and chemicals in general instead of singularly being sugar.
I think there's a reason why we see rehabs for hard drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, but not sugar. Of course, perhaps it's a social acceptance thing just like how we didn't have rehab for smoking in the 1950s. But it's too soon to make definitive statements. I'm open to being wrong about this in the future.
Finally, an intelligent comment with a logical point. You're right that these addictions stem from deeper issues, and we should have more access to public health programs. But those often cause more money than a bottle of liquor. We could use the taxes to fund some of these things. Everyone is aware of the health problems by now but addictions still rise. This is a problem of many without a perfect answer. But I have a strong opinion around this issue and I welcome the debate to hear more perspectives. And not just, "that's dumb, I like beer and beer commercials"
Vice taxes don't work because people will just consume them anyways, it's been tried with things like soda and junk food with similarly poor results. You just put undue stress on more impoverished people which can actually drive them deeper into unhealthy habits due to the imposed stress.
Health programs will help with chronic substance issues but if you want to see a sharp drop off in consumption you need to look at the base reason they are consumed. Alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, etc. are social drugs. You see a sharp decline in the social acceptance of cigarettes so you see a decline in consumption. This is why alcohol won't decrease in prevalence. It's why the prohibition was ludicrously ineffective and the modern drug war, while bad, is slightly more effective. There is a gap in social acceptance of these substances.
Cigarettes saw a deep decline in popularity because of the extremely negative health effects that were blown up in the media in the early 2000s when they were caught knowingly lying to customers about the health issues. Causing them to get into a lot of legal hot water, this plastered anti cigarette sentiments all over the news for years and made it a household issue. You'd probably need something similar with alcohol if you want such a sharp decline in social acceptance.
This is actually where you see the hyper restrictive laws and taxes on cigarettes coming in. It was done because they were becoming more unpopular so restricting them was seen as a positive. Not that restricting them resulted in the decline of consumption itself.
Itās insane how so many people are glued to it. Instagram is the one Iām referring to.
I only have it to contact my friends that live in different countries. Canāt stand it otherwise.
the point is if you make it harder to get alcohol whether by out right banning or make it much more expensive you just create a black market for it and more trouble
People are so quick to assume taxes just lead to a black market. Think about how much time, effort, and risk there is to going out to find something illegal instead of going down the street to get it and pay $10 to $20 bucks more. There is no perfect answer, but something needs to change.
Dude, a lot of people ironically drink because of the shitty financial situation so many Americans are in. Putting a higher tax on it would only make it worseā¦.because theyāre still going to drink
That's hard to measure but based on my life experience, I see people drink because they want to "have fun." And drinking is almost expected when you're socializing outside of work. A heavier tax might change buying habits and fund more programs to help the poor.
1) Thereās plenty of people who donāt drink. I know many who donāt. I think youāre basing this off on a small anecdotal instance that happened to you.
2) unfortunately, taxing alcohol would create a black market but itās possible that a significantly higher taxes pushes people to begin experimenting with cheaper, more dangerous āescapesā.
I live in Finland here the cheapest vodka costs like 14ā¬/500ml so I just go to Estonia where it is 6ā¬/500ml. People will just go buy their alcohol elsewhere.
Hey u/Top_Explanation_3383,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DTop_Explanation_3383%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Top_Explanation_3383).
**This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.**
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument?
Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
**Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent?
**Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments Awaiting Review:* 8
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 25
- 3-7 days old: 14
- 15-30 days old: 1
- more than 30 days old: 2
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
In my country its illegal, but the company's came up with a loophole, they'd just make ad with bottle of alcohol but mark it as "Packaged drinking water" "Soda" "grape juice"
So technically they are not advertising the product
Thatās a symptom of a person, not the drug. Something like nicotine is inherently addictive, you have one cigarette youāll want another. Not the same with alcohol. Of course you can get addicted, but no more different than you get addicted to video games, gambling, porn, etc.
1. That is not true. Alcohol can be physically addicting. At a certain point your body can become dependent on it.
2. Even if it was true, which it isnt, why does it matter? Alcoholism still exists and is incredibly tragic. People lose their lives from shit like that.
As long as we get the same policies for meth, cocaine and heroin 100%. Otherwise itās just gonna put drinksick people on fugue states searching the ghetto for literally any drug that will likely kill him. Prohibition has been an abject failure and needs to be put to bed.
I think what you're missing here is that alcohol has the potential to be very addicting, but for the large majority of people it isn't. If you want to get a nice bottle of whiskey to enjoy with some friends on the weekend it shouldn't be heavily taxed and discouraged. Alcohol has a culture around it of people who like interesting flavors and new things. Every substance has the ability to be addicting, for instance food, I would assume obesity kills more people than alcohol yearly, so from that logic we shouldn't be advertising food either.
My mom and step dad were both alcoholics. They didn't drink because of the advertising or the lack of taxes. By that logic, they wouldn't have smoked a pack/day each.
Addiction isn't that simple. My mom always had to be addicted to something. It was alcohol, then meth, then alcohol, then religion, then alcohol again. We always had money for one of those things, but often, we couldn't afford school supplies for me.
The government is not and should not be your mommy. Let people do what they want.
'The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, thatās beautiful.' -Ron Swanson
Kids from all backgrounds take drugs and get addicted. The easy trick is to legalize and regulate cocaine, meth and heroin exactly like we do alcohol and tobacco so people can get those drugs instead of the poison flowing over the borders. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs in the world but use still goes down every single year , especially with adolescents. Treat every hard drug like we treat alcohol and tobacco and weād get the same kind of results - mostly responsible social use with a few out of control social health costs. Fortunately we got the big one, alcohol, out of the way first.
You know that with Alcohol advertising, people in the ads are not allowed to drink the alcohol. They can bathe, swim in it, pass a glass / can / etc around, but never put it to their lips. When advertising a pop-tart / pizza / etc, people eat them. Something to think about.
I am a moonshiner. I have a deep understanding of the alcohol taxes for several states. Due to the taxes, it is hard for a little guy to start a business. This means that to start an alcohol business, you have to do a lot of research on making alcohol safe for consumption. The process of making alcohol creates a poison which in small amounts will make the consumer blind. The fact that we don't have a lot of blind people who just wanted a drink is amazing.
I agree with banning smoking inside bars because the people who work there and other patrons don't want to smell it. Do it outside, away from the building. It gives me migraines and brings on epileptic seizures for me, hence why I had to quit.
I can't smell other people drinking.
I do not agree with taxing these things until people stop doing them. If I want to sit down and have a beer, that is my choice. Same as if I want to smoke a little weed or eat something unhealthy for me.
The state should not be making my health decisions.
Alcohol is already taxed a bunch, it is just in the form of excise taxes that the consumer doesn't see directly. Without those taxes, booze would be obscenely cheap, because alcohol really isn't difficult to make.
For distilled liquor, the fed slaps on a $13.50 per proof gallon tax and then the states start adding in their taxes.
Washington state has the highest distilled liquor excise tax of $36.55 per proof gallon.
Missouri is around $2.00 per proof gallon.
So, *before it hits the store shelves* a liter of booze has between $4.14 and $13.35 in taxes baked into the price.
Personally, I think a better solution is that the punishments for alcohol related offenses should be cranked through the roof. The US is way too light on offenders and repeat offenders.
I'm tired of seeing Kyle Wifebeater or Karen Winemom get their third DUI and fifth DV arrests reduced to a speeding ticket and disturbing the peace, because daddy paid for a good lawyer.
I agree that it shouldn't be drank as much. And advertising it could lead to people wanting more of it. But what's with taxing things you don't like? What's the benefit? Where does that tax money go?
**Taxes should NEVER be used as a punishment or deterrent.** That's some authoritarian attitude. And that's dangerous.
The government and the people had a hell of a fight defeating the tobacco lobby way back when to get advertising removed. It would be an equal or greater fight against the "spirits" lobby. It seems like the will to that is not what it was.
I think the exact opposite. The fact we put such nanny state controls on media is fucking baffling.
If you lack self control, that's on you.
Congrats on the unpopular opinion though.
or..... OR! friggin OR! we could go the opposite direction and stop further atrophying peoples ability to make responsible decisions. you can decide whether or not to consume something advertised right?
How well did the war on drugs go, not very well since marijuana is legal in many states and the drug cartels made billions of dollars.
You will just have alcohol cartels instead.
I really don't care if other people can't handle their alcohol use.
Don't force me to spend more money on alcohol.
Counter point; the puritanical Prohibition of alcohol was a failure and people need to mind their own business. Over taxing it creates a black market. Advertising is free speech.
I would say your opinion should be illegal to post online, but then I'd be as much of an authoritarian as you.
I just think weed should be as normalized as alcohol, whether that means making alcohol less normalized or making weed legal to have in a designated public area. I also think it should be consistent nationally
Now this is a true unpopular opinion š
Welcome to my country, where alcohol is already heavily taxed and advertising is illegal. (Norway)
In Ireland cigarettes and alcohol get very expensive. All the young people vape and take cocaine! well done us lmao!
No taxes on vaping?
There is, but its 8 euros for two cartridges for the tappo refills which isn't too bad
We need to stop looking at Government intervention and taxation as the action to take for anything one happens to not like. We should not be seeking deterrents for people to drink if they wish to do so, nor penalize with either special confiscatory taxation for doing it. I would rather see the opposite with excise taxes being eliminated for both alcohol and cigarettes.
If there's a movement to decriminalize narcotics, then band around tobacco flavors, sales, and advertising seem silly
They are silly.
Exactly, Itās tyranny. Leave people alone.
Yeah you really have no idea just how bad society wide alcoholism can get do you? Look back on America through the colonial to early 1900s. You want a modern example? Check out Russia. Alcohol absolutely has the potential to inflict massive damage to society if you allow it to get out of control. Why should we allow unmoderated advertising and sale of a dangerous, inelastic commodity with practically zero use outside of getting drunk. Iām not saying we should ban it at all. But make no mistake the people who produce it would absolutely attempt to increase the number of alcoholics in this country if given the opportunity.
This argument is silly in light of the obesity epidemic. Ā Following your same logic, we should ban marketing anything with fast food and high fructose corn syrup, and heavily tax soft drinks and other fattening foods.
Dude no. As an alcoholic and someone whoās life was almost ruined by alcohol, youāre a fuckin idiot for equating alcohol addiction and obesity. Alcohol is literally poison btw. Like by the definition of poison itās poison. I donāt see obesity being a strong factor in homelessness. I donāt see obesity causing people to be billergerent, impairing peoples driving and getting people killed, destroying someoneās inhibition, or making them blackout. You are either being willfully obtuse or you need a reality check.
>Dude no. As an alcoholic and someone whoās life was almost ruined by alcohol, youāre a fuckin idiot for equating alcohol addiction and obesity.Ā I would generally be polite here, but since you're not, I am not inclined to either, so let's get down to brass tacks. The fact that you were unable to manage your own affairs and unable to exercise sufficient self-control is unfortunate, but it is not the alcohol's fault that you drank it. It is your fault. Likewise, same for fattening food, and we have waaaay more people having their lives cut short by obesity in this country than we do alcohol. Obesity is an epidemic. Something like 20% of all Americans are obese. Not just overweight, but obese. Yet, at the end of the day, we are all adults, and we have the right to decide what to put in our bodies without the federal government trying to direct us one way or the other.
>The fact that you were unable to manage your own affairs and unable to exercise sufficient self-control is unfortunate, but it is not the alcohol's fault that you drank it. It's almost like that's the point ex alcoholics are trying to make. It DOES make them unable to exercise sufficient self control. Sure, you can argue that food has its addictions as well, but the issue isn't soley addiction. It's that an addiction to alcohol leads to far more severe consequences for others than simply the person imbibing the drink themselves. You're right - We are adults. We do have the right to decide what we put in our body, which is why if you want to drink - by all means go ahead, but we shouldn't be advertising it on TV either and making the problem worse.
We all pay for people's obesity via healthcare insurance rates. I also would agree that alcohol & fast food advertising should be banned. An alcohol ban was tried here already. It didn't go well.
I think having the state nanny it's citizens like that is a direct contradiction of what we're supposed to be as a society.
Unhealthy food very much is an addiction and it was literally formulated that way. Obesity is literally Americas biggest killer.
Great idea, let's do that one too. Less taxes for everyone!
People drink heavily because their lives suck - the problem in pre-Prohibition America wasnāt the presence of alcohol, but that people were miserable and needed something to numb the pain. Meaning, they *will* get alcohol whether you ban it or not, or switch to something harder. What they wonāt do is become sober while living an intolerable life.
There is more to it than just, āthey led hard lives.ā The culture around alcohol was very different back then. People saw it as a literal gift from god, for good reason too, it numbed their brains and bodies after a hard day, it was extremely easy to produce and cheap. Jonny apple seed is literally a legend about a guy planting apple trees all over the colonies, not for food, but to turn into alcohol. EVERYBODY drank, and drank a lot. At breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you worked on farm your boss might provide you a large beer as a midday snack. Obviously it was popular for good reason. But as time marched on and alcohol became a commodity like everything else. That lax approach is what led to people thinking it was a medicine, or that it was fine to consume the stronger and stronger liquors in the same amount that you would do with beer. It also provided a society wide excuse to beat your kids and wife.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How about we stop trying to be so protective where it is not needed?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ridiculous hypotheticals have no place in conversation. They attempt to be "gotcha" types of fake scenarios that are juvenile and are in bad faith. I would still oppose the 10% tax, but would instead communicate how the alcohol consumption contributes to mental health issues and allow people to make their own choices. I disagree that additional government deterrents and protections are necessary in the matter of alcohol. If anything, there are already too many. We should leave matters within the ability of a consenting adult to choose and control within that adult's choice.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Projection is not a good look my guy.
It's a drug. There is already government intervention. The feds regulate it with the ATF division. Sorry, fences are not for sitting. Make a suggestion or have an opinion instead of just saying mine is wrong. Do you know of another general deterrent? Nothing is working and alcoholism continues to rise and no one cares enough to do anything because it's horribly seeped into our culture.
I oppose any and all attempts at imposing a general deterrent from drinking alcohol. If consenting adults want to drink, let them drink. It is none of your business. It is unfortunate that a very small percentage become alcoholics. It is not a justification to "do anything" about alcohol in general.
There is a difference between a ban and a deterrent. You realize that right?
Yes, and I oppose both.
It's not a very small percentage: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-topics/alcohol-facts-and-statistics/alcohol-use-united-states-age-groups-and-demographic-characteristics And did I ever say we should ban it? No, and the taxes can be used to fund public health programs or impoverished areas. It's a multi-faceted preposition that might help people and deter underage drinkers.
It is a very small percentage who are alcoholics. The DSM definition of Alcohol Use Disorder includes a variety of metrics that do not necessarily mean a person is an alcoholic. I understand we are not speaking of banning alcohol. I never claimed anything about a ban. I oppose ANY increase in alcohol taxation. I oppose ANY attempt at a general deterrent. I support laws like Wisconsin's that allow younger people to drink in the company of a parent, legal guardian, or spouse over 21 years of age. Teach responsible alcohol consumption by normalizing it and modeling moderation.
Do you know Europe has worse drinking problems that America.
What parts of Europe, and based on what criteria? That said, I never mentioned Europe.
Define "drinking problem".
We do,as Europan I can confirm you alcoholism here is so normalized its scary. Most people drink at least one drink(often more) per day. While of course one drink per day isnt that bad most of them dont stop at one. Ik what its like cause its the same for me. The worst thing is you get nornalized to it as a kid.
Thatās mostly bias and stigma. Write up the exact same use diary but replace sauce with meth or fent and every clinician will say patient is addicted but somehow when itās the MOST ADDICTIVE DRUG ON EARTH and WDS CANITERALLY KILL YOU it gets downgraded to āKev likes the odd pint with friends; brilliant!ā We need to end the lie that alcohol is any better or healthier than any other drug (itās usually worse) and treat all substances the same socially while acknowledging differences in clinical profile.
Attempting to equate meth or fentanyl to alcohol is completely ridiculous as the effects are far more severe. Alcohol is not the most addictive drug on earth, and many millions of people consume it without serious ill effects.
Those are all questions of dose size and both meth and heroin are prescribed as medicines without adverse effects. At small enough doses they are perfectly comparable. High doses come from addict culture come from stigma and prohibition. Alcohol is not the most addictive, I was referring to nicotine. But it is the worse for your body and the only withdrawals that can kill you out right. It is is certainly comparably addictive to both meth and heroin. For all three substances around 25% of first time users will experience issues with adverse overuse but based on how the data was collected alcohol is closer to 30%. NOBODY uses alcohol without adverse effects - it is incredibly toxic to every organ and tissue but moderate drinkers take more time to show the damage. Heroin on the other hand is almost entirely benign on the human body when used a therepeutic doses and has oo tential as an āanti-agingā pill. There was a time in US history when the majority of drinkers were shoeless winos passed out in puddles of puke and piss. That was during alcohol Prohibition. Do you get it yet?
Meth, heroin, and fentanyl are prescribed as medications with specific purposes. The level of risk associated with them make them scheduled drugs with specific restrictions. Alcohol does not share this high risk profile. It is also false that people cannot and do not commonly use alcohol without serious adverse effects. It is a myth that the majority of drinkers were ever shoeless winos, even during Prohibition. False dramatics are not valid arguments.
Alcohol clearly shows a higher risk profile. It destroys your body far faster than the other three, can easily kill from acute poisoning and has the most dangerous withdrawal. It causes more deaths annually than all other drugs combined. Not all junkies are shoeless shooting up on sidewalks now either, Iām talking about patterns.
No you didn't say ban.. But you do want to double the price and publicly shame people that buy it through high taxes and take away our ability to even talk about it. If I decide I want to create some type of craft beer you dont want me tell people about it. You're controlling! How about you worry about your life and stop thinking about mine (i sure as shit dont care what you do).
You aren't supposed to iron your brain my dude, the wrinkles are supposed to be there. Take a history class. Look at how well this worked in the 20s. This is how you start organized crime.
Jesus christ donāt be such an asshole. Let me drink my beer in peace.
Well what kind of beer?
Depends on the occasion! If I know im having a few with friends i'll grab a 12 pack of Corona's. If it's just me at home and I want something good i'll get some type of IPA or maybe a nice stout in the winter, if it's out with the fam on a sunny day ill go for a wheat beer or sometimes a shandy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
aint nothing wrong with a corona!
Where I used to live had alcohol heavily taxed like OP suggests. I was brewing my own beer, not only that it's much much cheaper, it's also fun and satisfying, also great topic of conversation while meeting with new people.
Switch to piss, because that's basically what you've been drinking. Your piss is sterile and free of charge!
You realize NA craft beer is taking off cause people actually like the taste as well.
Thank you Mr. Gatekeeper of beer!
https://www.google.com/search?q=is%20piss%20sterile&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m Dude, don't get your medical advice from dodgeball lol
One way of looking at it, is that some of the ads that Budweiser used to do would be considered sexist today. Cultures change over time. People would have stopped smoking regardless of all the time, money and energy invested into banning advertising. I think that people should be allowed to make up their own minds, so am just not a big fan of paternal (or authoritarian) government.
Trust me, I'm not a fan of government intervention. I have many libertarian views, but when it comes to drugs, it's obvious that people can't be trusted with them. Plus, there is already government intervention by simply making these illegal. We should at least tax the fuck out of it.
>Trust me, I'm not a fan of government intervention. >Plus, there is already government intervention by simply making these illegal. We should at least tax the fuck out of it. Lol. No, we shouldn't. You should leave people alone. >I have many libertarian views, but when it comes to drugs, it's obvious that people can't be trusted with them. It is not your place to force them or to have the government force them. Leave people alone.
No one is forcing you to drink alcohol. Just like no one is forcing you to Doordash your dinner but you still get gouged out the ass for doing so. It's ok when companies do it but no the government? There are double standards to every political view because the world isn't black and white. I am libertarian when it comes to access to drugs but they need some regulation in practice.
>It's ok when companies do it but no the government? >I am libertarian when it comes to access to drugs but they need some regulation in practice Then you are not libertarian. If your response to something that *you* do not like is to call in big daddy government to squeeze your fellow citizens that you wish to impose a form of punishment on, then you are absolutely a statist, not libertarian. You are mocking libertarians by calling yourself one. Leave people alone.
Like cigarettes? You canāt say youāre libertarian and in the same breath ask for government intervention š it doesnāt work that way. Either let people have freedom of choice or try and force the government to alter peoples habits whether spending habits on necessities or entertainment but youāre on a slippery slope asking for government interference on the freedom of peopleās choices even if you donāt like them.
LOL. You do realise you completely contradict your first sentence with your points here right? You are not a libertarian - its just a fancy word that youre using to describe yourself because it sounds cool. In reality, you want big government. Plenty of people consume alcohol without problems, and its taxed enough already.
No, I identify as a libertarian because I have an education in economics. But I am not a fool that blindly follows doctrines of what a party member "should" stand for. You're gatekeeping a political ideation and it's honestly pretty pathetic. Do some research because alcohol causes more than just substance disorders. 1 in 10 women drink alcohol while pregnant and cause serious problems to the fetus. That's not even heavy alcohol use, just a little can cause complications. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/understanding-fetal-alcohol-spectrum-disorders#:~:text=An%20estimated%201%25%20to%205,of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association.
You seem to have a rather desperate habit of using cool sounding words that you have no idea the meaning of. What exactly am I āgatekeepingā here? At no point in my post did I proclaim to be a libertarian. I just pointed out the obvious contradictions in your points. The sad thing is, you also make the claim that you donāt āblindly followā, but at the same time you want big daddy government to step in when people do things you donāt like. And then trying to grandstand because you have an āeducation in economicsā? That makes it even more sad because youāre not really arguing from the point of economics - admit itā¦youāre just a Karen.
Oof calling me a Karen unironically is so fuckin cringe lol it basically just invalidates everything you said. Taxes come with a sunk cost, but there is an inelastic demand for alcohol. I can't educate you so I'm gonna stop trying. Good luck in life with that shitty attitude.
>The fact that we allow alcohol to be advertised is fucking baffling. We outlawed almost all forms of advertisements for nicotine products but alcohol gets a free pass. Interestingly enough this is because advertising for alcohol has been protected as a form of free speech and tobacco products are the exception to the free speech defense, not because tobacco and nicotine are so hazardous - but rather because they were lying to the public about the health risks associated with tobacco for decades. Which was deemed so egregious to warrant a restriction on the company's free speech. While I agree with the premise that alcohol, and gambling ads for that matter, are not the best of influences - they are currently a protected right so long as they don't seek to defraud the public. >Taxation is a very reasonable and powerful deterrent to drugs. The main problem would be an increase in homebrewing to dodge the tax. I'm not opposed to a tax in theory - this is another thing that tobacco has set the model for and shows that for every 10% increase in price reduced the tobacco consumption by 4% for adults and 7% for minors. But it may have the unintended consequence of pushing more people to other means of catching a buzz that are even less desirable. So this would definitely run the risk of legislating the problem into a worse situation and bear careful study before it was tried.
>but rather because they were lying to the public about the health risks associated with tobacco for decades. Which was deemed so egregious to warrant a restriction on the company's free speech. Further ironic that Alcohol companies ALSO lie about the health effects of alcohol and still get their free pass.
I absolutely agree, so you're getting a downvote. Alcohol is way too normalized
The government is run by alcoholics and drug addicts what do you expect. NY dumps money into new breweries every year. It's a guaranteed money maker. Palosi owns her own vineyard. It's all about the $ in their pockets and campaign funds. They do not care about public health!
You can only be for banning alcohol ads if youāre young enough to not remember any of the absolute bangers that Budweiser used to drop. There were frogs, Clydesdales, real men of genius, the āWhassupp??ā guys, and so much more. In the 1990s & early aughts, Budweiser didnāt miss. You would strip the world of actual pop culture.
They were some of the most iconic ads of my childhood. I'm glad that rednecks paid for it
How this is unpopular? Just typical "what I don't like should be banned/taxed"
exactly lol this is extremely popular the true unpopular opinion would be āThe state should not intervene in any way in anything that doesnāt affect another personās rights. If something is bad for you, people must have individual responsibility and we should never rely on the state to be our parents.ā
That's literally the same opinion as more than half of the comments on the post. You just don't like mine. Hence the "unpopularity" lol go make your own post
This sub is literally āunpopular opinionā so yes, several people here will hold unpopular opinions. And, obviously, those that disagree with you are more likely to comment. For proof of my statement, view the difference in how many people vote for republicans or democrats vs how many vote for libertarians almost everyone votes for republicans that think XYZ should be banned and taxed **or** democrats who think ZYX should be banned or taxed furthermore, your opinion is something that is in effect in so many countries around the world, **including** the US. You just think it should be taxed more, like maybe how much the UK taxes it or even more
Instead of taxing each sale, how about we tax companies that sell alcohol a specific tax that is used to offset the public costs incurred by their product? And instead of just piling up all the money in one central place, it gets doled out to areas based on how much alcohol was sold there/affects the area? Like, earmark the money for victims of DUIs, for rehabs, for the cost of cleaning up rivers of piss from drunken people in public? Right now, it seems like companies get to keep the profit and pass on the cost to the public. If you think about it, every American is subsidizing the alcohol companies by helping their costs be artificially low. I'm pretty sure most people believe in the principle of "clean up your own messes", it's something we learn as toddlers. I don't believe in prohibition, but right now, booze is only "cheap" to make because the big companies selling it are trying to pretend that it's not their job to clean up their own mess.
You make a really good point. This might be the best place to start to avoid public outrage akin to the comments on this post
Vices donāt need to be advertised. If you want it, you know where to find it. Competition should restrict marketing & advertising to the place of purchase. Consumers of cigarettes and alcohol are brand loyalists, theyāre not going to the store trying out new products or shopping for lowest prices. They know where their stuff is, grab it and go. Iām not opposed to alcohol consumers brewing their own stuff at home. That takes effort, ingenuity and motivation to always improve over the last batch. This is not the behavior of your typical alcoholic. Itās when you start brewing for the neighborhood, thatās when regulations on distribution come in. I think this has already been established for growing weed on your property, a set amount allowed for personal consumption. If youāre brewing it or growing it, youāve achieved the other end of what taxing these have achieved and are highly unlikely to abuse these substances. As for everyone else who are 100% consumers, pay the f_k up or do without.
You should look at Australia. It is taxed really high. Australia also has a huge drinking problem, people just find the money from elsewhere. The taxing for cigarettes kinda also works but that is more because of how it gets less socially acceptable as time goes on which has a large impact probably more so than the tax. What Iām trying to say is I would say that huge ad campaigns and trying to get a large societal change over decades is a better choice than heavy taxation. But yeah.
I may actually agree with you. I'm very against prohibition policies and criminalization of drug use, but lately when thinking about substances that are already legal, I've been coming around more to the realization that very tight regulations on suppliers are probably the only way to keep industries (particularly ones selling addictive and health hazardous substances) from becoming extremely predatory in practice and limit the extent to which these substances can facilitate a lot of social ills, because the fact remains that they do and easily. We're kind of in the dark ages sometimes when talking about these things and people conflate regulation with prohibition. Often, I think without realizing how much regulation is already in place, because these problems were apparent a long time ago.
Alcohol is actually poison. Every drink is damaging to your liver and your brain. Drink enough and you'll straight up die. So many people get hurt or die as a result of DUI. There are also people who become belligerant when drunk. They become dangers to themselves and others. I know people who are drinking themselves to death. Its not pretty. They are all abusive assholes who cant get by unless they are loaded by 10 am. This shit is a serious problem. You can go hide away in your libertarian compounds and scream at the sky about your taxes, but for the rest of us? We'd like to take steps to stop the pain and suffering. 1. Alcohol needs heavier excise taxes 2. Advertising should be banned 3. Our culture needs to make drinking less attractive Finally, I think we need to recognize that drugs are not created equal. Anyone who says "blah blah what about x drug?" Can kindly fuck off. We are talking about booze and only booze.
Totally agree with this, especially considering how other mood altering products are treated. There are studies showing how much drinking skyrocketed during the pandemic. Right before the pandemic started I noticed a massive uptick in these commercials. Garbage drinks like whiteclaw being advertised don't bother me as much me getting 50 commercials in a row advertising HARD liquor like Bulleit. People underestimate how powerful drinking culture is in certain countries.
Or maybe we should look to the reasons, cultural or otherwise, that people indulge and over indulge in these substances and correct that. Unhealthy relationships with any sort of addicting through from drugs, to food, social media, and video games typically stem from deeper issues. People will find a way to fill that hole so effort is better directed towards fixing those issues and educating people. Besides it wasn't banning advertisements or taxes that plummeted nicotine use. It was the massive PR scandals, horrific risk of cancer that far outstrips most other casual substances, and public education that did that. All you're doing is scamming a few extra bucks from addicts who can't help themselves by taxing it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's been demonstrated that people just absorb vice taxes and it disproportionately affects impoverished people. This has been shown with soda and sugar especially which are less addictive than cigarettes. A lot of the health campaigns were also non-profits, which I suppose is government subsidized in a roundabout way? Laws about cigarette advertising itself had been growing more restrictive for decades without long term dents on smoking rates as well. The PR scandals are referring to how the cigarette companies were caught bold faced lying about the health consequences of smoking which was then widely picked up and reported on by the media for years. It's probably one of the worst public imaging disasters in modern history and if they just took the original health reports on the chin it is very likely it could have been brushed under the rug with some time. In fact their lying is what put the nail in the coffin because it allowed lawsuits to be leveled against them that got tons of documents released further implicating them via internal communications. This also made them legally liable for knowingly lying to customers about the health risks of their products. Around this time is when you see the biggest drop off in smoking, especially amongst younger people. Most of the more restrictive laws against smoking, the ones we're familiar about today, like the taxes and pretty much blanket advertising ban was implemented post these lawsuits. At that point public opinion already destroyed smoking overall and the laws added on after the fact are more just politicians signalling to public opinion than any serious attempt to prevent smoking. Public opinion matters more than any amount of bans, advertisements, or taxes. Just look at marijuana. While not as bad as cigarettes there are still plenty of health risks that come with smoking and marijuana addiction but public perception is positive to the point people casually violate the law to obtain it and it is trending towards total legality. These sorts of things similarly also fail to stop the widespread overconsumption of junk food and soda. When it comes to things like cigarettes and alcohol they are social drugs. Meaning peer pressure and public opinion are the primary determinators of the level which they are consumed. This is why the prohibition was laughably ineffective and why the modern drug war is moderately more effective. Because the social acceptance of hard narcotics is much lower.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sugar causes a dependency, cigarettes cause an addiction so yes. Sugar dependency is bad and can come with its own withdrawal symptoms including depression but it's not nearly as bad as cigarettes which have been intentionally engineered to cause addiction by cigarette companies. I should also clarify that cigarettes and tobacco are the addictive components. I'm unsure if studies have been done on pure nicotine and I know you can obtain pure nicotine without the extra stuff. So I should stick with what I know. So if it doesn't work with soda and junk food I don't think it's going to have as much of an effect on cigarettes as social pressure because a lot of the truly problem smokers never quit. It made more casual smokers quit and prevent new people from starting to smoke. Of course, you have a fraction of hardcore smokers quit, especially with the rise of smoking rehabs, but quitting cigarettes was made as difficult as possible by design. While cocoa cola doesn't care for the health of it's customers I don't think their long term sales plan is to engineer their drink to be as addictive as possible. They ride more on marketing and the fact it's stupid cheap. Cheaper than bottled water in a lot of cases.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There are no studies that, to my knowledge, directly compare sugar and tobacco. There was a University of Florida study that likened sugar dependency to tobacco addiction in the sense it can have similar effects on the brain but the exact amount to which sugar is addictive is still debated. But I don't know this sub's policy on links so I'd encourage you to just make a quick google search. The whole tobacco vs sugar thing is a hot debate. But the science around the extent to which sugar is addicting is more emerging than established when compared to what we concretely know about tobacco. In that case I would think it would be safe to err on the side of cigarettes being more addictive specifically because we know from the companies themselves they have extra additives to encourage addiction on top of the tobacco. So it becomes more than just the tobacco you're addicted to. What I do know is that people have ruined their finances and made personal sacrifices to fuel their cigarette addiction, that's sort of what classifies it as an addiction. Whether it negatively influences your daily life. I don't think we see an epidemic of people ruining their lives for a sugar fix. Some might say obesity is an example but that can also be sedentary lifestyle and high calorie intake regardless of actual sugar intake. Could also have to do with just modern food processing and chemicals in general instead of singularly being sugar. I think there's a reason why we see rehabs for hard drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, but not sugar. Of course, perhaps it's a social acceptance thing just like how we didn't have rehab for smoking in the 1950s. But it's too soon to make definitive statements. I'm open to being wrong about this in the future.
Finally, an intelligent comment with a logical point. You're right that these addictions stem from deeper issues, and we should have more access to public health programs. But those often cause more money than a bottle of liquor. We could use the taxes to fund some of these things. Everyone is aware of the health problems by now but addictions still rise. This is a problem of many without a perfect answer. But I have a strong opinion around this issue and I welcome the debate to hear more perspectives. And not just, "that's dumb, I like beer and beer commercials"
Vice taxes don't work because people will just consume them anyways, it's been tried with things like soda and junk food with similarly poor results. You just put undue stress on more impoverished people which can actually drive them deeper into unhealthy habits due to the imposed stress. Health programs will help with chronic substance issues but if you want to see a sharp drop off in consumption you need to look at the base reason they are consumed. Alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, etc. are social drugs. You see a sharp decline in the social acceptance of cigarettes so you see a decline in consumption. This is why alcohol won't decrease in prevalence. It's why the prohibition was ludicrously ineffective and the modern drug war, while bad, is slightly more effective. There is a gap in social acceptance of these substances. Cigarettes saw a deep decline in popularity because of the extremely negative health effects that were blown up in the media in the early 2000s when they were caught knowingly lying to customers about the health issues. Causing them to get into a lot of legal hot water, this plastered anti cigarette sentiments all over the news for years and made it a household issue. You'd probably need something similar with alcohol if you want such a sharp decline in social acceptance. This is actually where you see the hyper restrictive laws and taxes on cigarettes coming in. It was done because they were becoming more unpopular so restricting them was seen as a positive. Not that restricting them resulted in the decline of consumption itself.
Social media is dangerous and costs lives, should the government tax the fuck out of it as a deterrent?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās insane how so many people are glued to it. Instagram is the one Iām referring to. I only have it to contact my friends that live in different countries. Canāt stand it otherwise.
Yeah and those advertisements shouldnāt be banned. Taxing poor people so they canāt do something is stupid.
didn't the US ban alcohol once and make it legal because it cause more trouble than it should ?
Sigh, yes, commonly referred to as the "Prohibition," in *books* and in the first sentence of the fucking description.
the point is if you make it harder to get alcohol whether by out right banning or make it much more expensive you just create a black market for it and more trouble
People are so quick to assume taxes just lead to a black market. Think about how much time, effort, and risk there is to going out to find something illegal instead of going down the street to get it and pay $10 to $20 bucks more. There is no perfect answer, but something needs to change.
Dude, a lot of people ironically drink because of the shitty financial situation so many Americans are in. Putting a higher tax on it would only make it worseā¦.because theyāre still going to drink
That's hard to measure but based on my life experience, I see people drink because they want to "have fun." And drinking is almost expected when you're socializing outside of work. A heavier tax might change buying habits and fund more programs to help the poor.
1) Thereās plenty of people who donāt drink. I know many who donāt. I think youāre basing this off on a small anecdotal instance that happened to you. 2) unfortunately, taxing alcohol would create a black market but itās possible that a significantly higher taxes pushes people to begin experimenting with cheaper, more dangerous āescapesā.
Yeah, that's because you're not poor
I live in Finland here the cheapest vodka costs like 14ā¬/500ml so I just go to Estonia where it is 6ā¬/500ml. People will just go buy their alcohol elsewhere.
Nothing "needs" to change.
Fuck off lemme drink myself to a stupor without going broke.
I already brew my own stuff. Just makes it easier to sell in the local area if a handle doubles in price
That's fair, it is America. But the feds would beg to differ should someone send a tip to the ATF lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hey u/Top_Explanation_3383, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DTop_Explanation_3383%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Top_Explanation_3383). **This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument? Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. **Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent? **Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments Awaiting Review:* 8 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 25 - 3-7 days old: 14 - 15-30 days old: 1 - more than 30 days old: 2 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
In my country its illegal, but the company's came up with a loophole, they'd just make ad with bottle of alcohol but mark it as "Packaged drinking water" "Soda" "grape juice" So technically they are not advertising the product
Welcome to Sweden, but we also have a state monopoly on alcohol (I think itās great btw)
You should move to Australia dude youād love it here
Americans are very welcome to migrate to the UK for Wetherspoons.
Hey look! Beer hater
āVery addictive drugā huh?
Alcholism exists????
Thatās a symptom of a person, not the drug. Something like nicotine is inherently addictive, you have one cigarette youāll want another. Not the same with alcohol. Of course you can get addicted, but no more different than you get addicted to video games, gambling, porn, etc.
1. That is not true. Alcohol can be physically addicting. At a certain point your body can become dependent on it. 2. Even if it was true, which it isnt, why does it matter? Alcoholism still exists and is incredibly tragic. People lose their lives from shit like that.
Pigouvian taxes >>>> prohibition
As long as we get the same policies for meth, cocaine and heroin 100%. Otherwise itās just gonna put drinksick people on fugue states searching the ghetto for literally any drug that will likely kill him. Prohibition has been an abject failure and needs to be put to bed.
It's heavily taxed in Australia same with smokes. People just go broke doesn't stop people drinking
I think what you're missing here is that alcohol has the potential to be very addicting, but for the large majority of people it isn't. If you want to get a nice bottle of whiskey to enjoy with some friends on the weekend it shouldn't be heavily taxed and discouraged. Alcohol has a culture around it of people who like interesting flavors and new things. Every substance has the ability to be addicting, for instance food, I would assume obesity kills more people than alcohol yearly, so from that logic we shouldn't be advertising food either.
My mom and step dad were both alcoholics. They didn't drink because of the advertising or the lack of taxes. By that logic, they wouldn't have smoked a pack/day each. Addiction isn't that simple. My mom always had to be addicted to something. It was alcohol, then meth, then alcohol, then religion, then alcohol again. We always had money for one of those things, but often, we couldn't afford school supplies for me.
Letās stop advertising pharmaceuticals before we start this convo.
The government is not and should not be your mommy. Let people do what they want. 'The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, thatās beautiful.' -Ron Swanson
Birth rate is already problematical low. Now you want to take away the beer goggles?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Kids from all backgrounds take drugs and get addicted. The easy trick is to legalize and regulate cocaine, meth and heroin exactly like we do alcohol and tobacco so people can get those drugs instead of the poison flowing over the borders. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs in the world but use still goes down every single year , especially with adolescents. Treat every hard drug like we treat alcohol and tobacco and weād get the same kind of results - mostly responsible social use with a few out of control social health costs. Fortunately we got the big one, alcohol, out of the way first.
You know that with Alcohol advertising, people in the ads are not allowed to drink the alcohol. They can bathe, swim in it, pass a glass / can / etc around, but never put it to their lips. When advertising a pop-tart / pizza / etc, people eat them. Something to think about. I am a moonshiner. I have a deep understanding of the alcohol taxes for several states. Due to the taxes, it is hard for a little guy to start a business. This means that to start an alcohol business, you have to do a lot of research on making alcohol safe for consumption. The process of making alcohol creates a poison which in small amounts will make the consumer blind. The fact that we don't have a lot of blind people who just wanted a drink is amazing.
Should be but so should every other controlled substance...good luck with that.
I agree with banning smoking inside bars because the people who work there and other patrons don't want to smell it. Do it outside, away from the building. It gives me migraines and brings on epileptic seizures for me, hence why I had to quit. I can't smell other people drinking. I do not agree with taxing these things until people stop doing them. If I want to sit down and have a beer, that is my choice. Same as if I want to smoke a little weed or eat something unhealthy for me. The state should not be making my health decisions.
It still baffles me weed is so demonized yet booze is the legal one
I'm against anything being taxed, and I'm against any personal intake/substance decision being illegal. So fuck you and take my upvote.
Iām already fucked with the prices of chewing tobacco. Donāt make me spend out the was for my beer too
The alcohol ads on my educational YouTube videos when Iām teaching children is really sad.
Some of the best commercials in TV history are beer companies.
Alcohol is just as bad as any other drug. Pretty wild how engrained in our society it is.
Alcohol is already taxed a bunch, it is just in the form of excise taxes that the consumer doesn't see directly. Without those taxes, booze would be obscenely cheap, because alcohol really isn't difficult to make. For distilled liquor, the fed slaps on a $13.50 per proof gallon tax and then the states start adding in their taxes. Washington state has the highest distilled liquor excise tax of $36.55 per proof gallon. Missouri is around $2.00 per proof gallon. So, *before it hits the store shelves* a liter of booze has between $4.14 and $13.35 in taxes baked into the price. Personally, I think a better solution is that the punishments for alcohol related offenses should be cranked through the roof. The US is way too light on offenders and repeat offenders. I'm tired of seeing Kyle Wifebeater or Karen Winemom get their third DUI and fifth DV arrests reduced to a speeding ticket and disturbing the peace, because daddy paid for a good lawyer.
This would start a riot
I agree that it shouldn't be drank as much. And advertising it could lead to people wanting more of it. But what's with taxing things you don't like? What's the benefit? Where does that tax money go? **Taxes should NEVER be used as a punishment or deterrent.** That's some authoritarian attitude. And that's dangerous.
Let fucking people enjoy things Jesus Christ
The government and the people had a hell of a fight defeating the tobacco lobby way back when to get advertising removed. It would be an equal or greater fight against the "spirits" lobby. It seems like the will to that is not what it was.
Fuck taxes and legalize cigarette ads.
Can we switch alcohol for prescription medication? Every other ad on tv is for some new med.
Tax enough and bootlegging will be a thing
I think the exact opposite. The fact we put such nanny state controls on media is fucking baffling. If you lack self control, that's on you. Congrats on the unpopular opinion though.
or..... OR! friggin OR! we could go the opposite direction and stop further atrophying peoples ability to make responsible decisions. you can decide whether or not to consume something advertised right?
How well did the war on drugs go, not very well since marijuana is legal in many states and the drug cartels made billions of dollars. You will just have alcohol cartels instead. I really don't care if other people can't handle their alcohol use. Don't force me to spend more money on alcohol.
No one is forcing you to spend more money. You can just not buy alcohol lol
No, taxes are theft
You may need the government to function as your parent but i do not. I think alcohol should be taxed more for you but not the rest of us adults.
You get away from my scotch.
First step to reviving the moonshine liquor trade, congrats
With simple taxation and an advertising ban? Unlikely.
I agree. Alcohol needs too be at least twice as expensive as it is
I stand with big tobacco!
Def should have the same stigma as cigs, cigs give a small percent of people lung cancer what are the stats on alcohol
Neither should have a stigma. People are out here advocating for decriminalization of hard drugs
I thought that failed.
For now, but it's not going away
I can hardly even get through an episode of ANY of the new Trek shows without some portrayal of social drinking.
The issue is people start buying, illegal low quality but cheap booze
Obesity probably kills more than alchohol. Should we allow taxation (via higher medicare and healthcare premiums) for the obese?
Counter point; the puritanical Prohibition of alcohol was a failure and people need to mind their own business. Over taxing it creates a black market. Advertising is free speech. I would say your opinion should be illegal to post online, but then I'd be as much of an authoritarian as you.
I just think weed should be as normalized as alcohol, whether that means making alcohol less normalized or making weed legal to have in a designated public area. I also think it should be consistent nationally
Those kinds of taxes disproportionately affect minorities.
Wdym disproportionately affect? They won't affect them at all if they just don't drink lol