Cigarette Warnings are understandable....but why not go after Alcohol too?

Question

http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html

Until they get behind the wheel of a car....smokers can drive and dosen't affect their mind..Alcohol Kills not only the one drinking, but innocent lives!

Answer 1

I just found out that Wisconsin is going to raise the taxes on cigarettes to nearly $2.10 per pack (and that is just tax). As a former smoker, I really don't care, but I wonder how many people are killed after a night of heavy smoking (compared to the number killed after a night of heavy drinking)?

Alcohol should be taxed at least as much as cigarettes.

Thanks for letting me vent - now on to the question.

They are. There is a very small print label that says "Please drink responsibly" and something along the lines of "If you are pregnant you shouldn't drink. . . possible birth defects. . ." Practically need a microscope to read it.

I long for the day (symbolically) when even social drinkers are hated as much as social smokers are - then everyone will know what it is like to be shunned by people. Unfortunately, the wake up call will be to late.

Answer 2

The making of alcoholic beverages has been around since almost the dawn of time. It probably rivals prostitution for the title of the "world oldest profession". Up until very recently it was not safe to drink water, hence the serving of "small beer" and watered wine at meals.

As recent times have shown, you can ban smoking in certain places and people will fuss, but comply. If you tried to ban drinking, you would probably be shot. Many more people drink than smoke, and there is an expression: "Social Drinking", whereas there is no such thing as social smoking.

Alcohol in moderation is said to be good for the health, i.e. a portion of red wine with a meal. The same can not be said for smoking. Also, the tax base on alcohol is so huge that the government would lose their shorts if they did a ban on booze.

Alcohol is a drug if abused. Cigs are just plain bad for you even if you only smoke a few a day. A shot or a nip here and there is not really going to hurt anyone. When you put away a case of brew a day, or fifth of Jack at one sitting, then you are a problem. It's not the alcohol that needs to be gone after, it's the people that abuse it.

Answer 3

You are asking the wrong question. Do you really need warning labels? It wasn't that long ago that nothing had warning labels and the idea that the government could force a company to spend it's own money to warn the public was a bizarre idea.

If everyone knows already the risks associated with smoking and drinking, then the only purpose behind mandating such things is merely anti-capitalist harassment. either that or the proponents think that we are all really, really stupid.

Study the people asking for labels!

Answer 4

That is such a good question. But sadly I think I know the answer.

It costs about 50 cents to make a US gallon of 198 proof alcohol.

To make less proof alcohol costs even less. Most of the cost of the alcohol people pay, is tax.

For instance, here in the UK, .25 of a pound for a 4 litres of whiskey say. This sells here for 12 to 25 pounds per litre, depending on the brand. The Duty paid to the Government for a litre is is at least 10 pounds. And the Government makes more money for the higher priced stuff.

This is a lot of money for any Government to lose. You think they make money on Tobacco, they make far more on alcohol.

Beer, Wine, Spirits, Cider. They make money on all of it.

And as long as they do, they will be reluctant to reduce the amount of money they get. Look how long it took to put the warnings on tobacco.

Answer 5

There health warnings on alcoholic beverages about their possible bad effects. The government could and does advertise against drinking alcohol.

Outlawing alcohol turned out to be a disaster and helped finance organized crime. You cant control vices with laws you must convince the users that it is wrong. Outlawing it just makes a lucrative black market.

Answer 6

Alcohol in moderation has a proven health benefit. Smoking tobacco on the otherhand has yet to illicit any 'proven' benefit at all. I suspect that moderate intake of organically grown,carefully seasoned and thoughtfully packaged tobacco is no more dangerious to us than the fumes given off by the inks,bleached paper and adhesives used in the manufacture of warning labels.

Answer 7

hmmmmm.................

the problem is alcohol is not actually bad for u on a moderate level, the bad thing is some misuse the privilage and consume to much. Alcohol when used correctly is healthy for your heart and body. Cigarettes on the other hand contains tar adn chemicals that are not healthy for your body at all and give a 100% chance of problems later if continued

Answer 8

well it says ON THE BOTTLE
DO NOT OPERATE MACHINARY or drive a car so it does say a warning so what are you saying?
and i guess lighter and matches need a warning my cause fir or serious burn
ITS COMMON SENSE NOT TO DRIVE DRUNK
blame people not the alcohol maybe they should take liscense away for good when someone gets caught driving one TIME

Answer 9

There ARE warnings on beer bottles, etc..."Please drink responsibly"...etc...
However, it's a little different than smoking.. The thing is..People are going to drink and society has to do as much as it can to encourage people to do it responsibly, whereas smoking is harmful to your health because pepoel are dying of lung cancer..Not the same thing.

Answer 10

Cigarette warnings are stupid, too. Who wants to inhale smoke? I was always told to Stop, Drop and Roll.