Counterpunch: Warning logos don’t change behaviour

subotic is big peoples says:

08:17am | 20/04/12

I’m going to drink. Mrs subotic is going to drink. And a warning label will not change our drinking habits one iota.

We all make choices in life. We all ignore the “warning signs”. And we all live with consequence.

Thank god we’s all big peoples on the Punch, rite?

Max Power says:

10:00am | 20/04/12

The left’s method of operations;

1. Educate (Labels and plain packaging)
2. Modify Behaviour (Increased Taxes)
3. Restrict (New laws regulating when, where or how much)
4. Ban (We know what is best for you)

nihonin says:

02:40pm | 20/04/12

Look out sub, if Tell It Like It Is, reads this you’ll cop the rhetorical speech finished with the condescending hmmmmmm…...lol

NO Brainer says:

01:21pm | 03/07/12

I like the ‘cake and eat it too’ approach of the anti-warning brigade. For example Drinkwise fundamental platform for ‘making a change in consumption habits’ is ‘EDUCATION’ because and I’m now quoting one of their past executives… ‘Legislation doesn’t work’. But now, we’re hearing, albeit subtlety, education doesn’t work!  Staggering assumptions, based on ‘some research’ somewhere. We know empirically that education and legislation together most definitely modify behaviour, just look at the QUIT campaign…which by the way has a clear ‘prohibition’ agenda…which we are also told by the purveyors of permissive spin, doesn’t work either… Amazing!

redvixen says:

08:38am | 20/04/12

@ Craig - I think you’ll find that there is evidence that certain types of alcohol (e.g. red wine) do have benefits if consumed in moderation.

Steve says:

08:57am | 20/04/12

There is no ‘safe’ level of aspirin use either, Craig.  Or travel - by any means, including walking. Should we ban everything in order to have a perfectly safe existence?

Nobody puts a gun to anyone’s head and says’ Drink or else”  Drinkers make their own choices based on what they see and know for themselves about alcohol.  Like it’s pleasurable and lots of fun.

Shane* says:

09:34am | 20/04/12

RedVixen, there is some benefit to resveretrol, which can be found in red wine, but unfortunately that benefit has been vastly overstated by people like Andrew from the Australian Winemakers Foundation.

Rather than take the word of the Australian Winemakers Foundation, I choose to take the word of the Australian HEART Foundation, who came out last year and said that they no longer support drinking red wine for any cardiac benefit.

Not to mention, on balance, the other damage it does in terms of weight gain, cancer, liver and kidney disease etc….

Don’t get me wrong, I still love a drink. But lets not kid ourselves or live in denial. The research clearly shows a net negative health impact from alcohol consumption. I prefer to make an informed decision (to continue drinking) than to believe that my drink of choice is somehow different to all other booze.

Steve says:

10:10am | 20/04/12

@Shane*

Would that Heart Foundation be the same Heart Foundation that is a member of the National Alliance for Action on Alcohol?

And it is a pity that plenty of other, more credible organisations acknowledge the mild protective effects of moderate consumption.  Such as the US Dietary Guidelines 2010.

Don’t take my word for it - let Google be your friend.

lisadp says:

02:50pm | 23/04/12

Yet if it was your mentally ill child or sibling abusing cigarettes, alcohol or other drugs then suddenly you are grateful for the nanny who thinks for that person at least.

Not everyone is capable of making appropriate choices. Let’s be honest about this. So yes there’s a balance to be struck. Merely adding a warning or removing the branding does not take away the smart/informed person’s ability to make a choice. But it does act as an disincentive for anyone—informed or not—to abuse it.

Bev says:

11:23am | 20/04/12

Do are such measures leading to informed decisions?  The case is almost always overstated and the measures are generally like using a sledge mammer to break a nut.  Seems to me it’s more about control than inform.

Meph says:

11:28am | 20/04/12

@Shane*

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.

Now that we have that out of the way, its worth pointing out that the simple act of breathing oxygen introduces free radicals into your body, and can lead to a number of strange types of cancer. Sunlight on aluminium produces occasional gamma rays which are known to cause cell mutations leading to cancer. Polyunsaturated margarine contains known carcinogens, while butter can lead to heart disease.

Damn near everything on this planet can kill you, and in some truly brutal and slowly agonising ways. Far better to put money into education (which you appear to support by reading between the lines) rather than supporting a cigarette style warning label that study has indicated to be ineffective in relation to alcohol.

Steve says:

11:43am | 20/04/12

Shane*

Told what?  That your past wine or beer consumption added to your risk of developing cancer, and might have been a contributing factor. 

Your oncologist or specialist will also tell you that it very well could be genetic, or some other unidentified chemical exposure, or a common infection such as HPV.

Fiddler says:

12:27pm | 20/04/12

more accurately there is a much stronger level of law enforcement on things such as public drunkeness, supplying alcohol to minors etc than there is here.

adam says:

12:33pm | 20/04/12

we beat common sense in Australia years age sub, we’ve moved on to bludgeoning personal responsibility now

Good Grief says:

12:47pm | 20/04/12

@subotic

Well, we are living in the “lucky country”. You know the country where no matter how many poor decisions we make, we can always rely on the exploitation of our natural resources to maintain our economy and welfare. And where we can behave poorly and later blame the government for not protecting us from ourselves

Inky says:

03:55pm | 20/04/12

The main problem I see with this entry, is you’re implying alcohol is the only thing we get charged through the nose for. I import most of my electronics, and it’s not just because I don’t pay GST on them that it’s cheaper. Even with shipping costs.

IDing everyone could work though. It’d certainly make rookie bartenders more likely to ID check, because as it is a lot of them are worried they’ll insult someone by asking for their ID. If everyone gets asked, it stops being a concern that you might be seen to be specifically targetting someone.

I did a bartending job at the Melbourne Cup year before last and we did a similar thing there. To order drinks from the bar, you *must* have gone to the proof of age tent and gotten a wrist band. Even if you were clearly over 18. Even if you were grey on top. Most of them took it in good humour, but it is a fairly alien concept down here.