I’m not Canadian, but I think that anyone who has watched a loved one suffer and wither and die in agony from cancer would argue that you deserve to know when you’re putting yourself at risk of that.
None of those warning labels seem excessive or pointless anymore after watching the last months of my father’s life.
The issue is why is alcohol being chosen? There’s probably 100 cancer risks that have no warning. I didn’t notice in the article what the actual increase in cancer risk was. Tons of things give you a cancer risk. Putting the labels on everything that may increase a cancer risk will just cause the labels to be ignored (like California in the U.S’ cancer warning labels). Labeling things would work better if only the highest risk things are labeled, like how ciggarettes are labeled. If that’s alcohol, then label it. But unless I zoned out while reading the article, I didn’t see any actual risk numbers given for alcohol. Only that more alcohol created more risk, but that is also pretty much any carcinogen.
That’s kind of the opposite of the point I made. My point was to only label things that cause a truly significant risk of cancer so people don’t ignore the labels. My point was also that the article doesn’t state what the increased risk actually is.
Watch someone live in agony for months, then come back and be a smart ass.
Edit: also, why the fuck would anything you said above matter? Nobody is telling you that you can’t drink, they just want to make sure you know and accept the risks.
Currently watching someone live in agony and slowly die from non-alcohol related cancer, you don’t have a monopoly on pain.
Edit: also, why the fuck would anything you said above matter? Nobody is telling you that you can’t drink, they just want to make sure you know and accept the risks.
No, that’s what education and information campaigns do. You tell people about the dangers of something. Putting warning labels on it is what you do to nag someone every single time they try and enjoy something.
We will all die, and most of the ways to die are horrendously unpleasant. Spend your life slapping warning labels on burnt toast and avoiding going into the sun if you’re that scared of the inevitable and see if it makes you happy.
It’s not a contest, it’s a frank acknowledgement that we will all die and a tiny fraction of the ways to die are pleasant.
Most of us will get cancer or heart disease or dementia and slowly whither away regardless of how we live our lives. At some point, min/maxing and being ultra cautious is utterly pointless.
If you want to engage in a discussion about when min / maxing risk-taking vs life-expectancy makes sense on a personal, or regulatory level, I’m all ears…
I’m not Canadian, but I think that anyone who has watched a loved one suffer and wither and die in agony from cancer would argue that you deserve to know when you’re putting yourself at risk of that.
None of those warning labels seem excessive or pointless anymore after watching the last months of my father’s life.
The issue is why is alcohol being chosen? There’s probably 100 cancer risks that have no warning. I didn’t notice in the article what the actual increase in cancer risk was. Tons of things give you a cancer risk. Putting the labels on everything that may increase a cancer risk will just cause the labels to be ignored (like California in the U.S’ cancer warning labels). Labeling things would work better if only the highest risk things are labeled, like how ciggarettes are labeled. If that’s alcohol, then label it. But unless I zoned out while reading the article, I didn’t see any actual risk numbers given for alcohol. Only that more alcohol created more risk, but that is also pretty much any carcinogen.
Why not choose alcohol?
The “well you’re not doing it for literally everything all at once right now so you can’t do it at all” argument is pretty lame.
That’s kind of the opposite of the point I made. My point was to only label things that cause a truly significant risk of cancer so people don’t ignore the labels. My point was also that the article doesn’t state what the increased risk actually is.
Have you watched someone die who didn’t drink?
Was it more pleasant?
Do you support MAID, but oppose all things that make life pleasant but may result in premature death? If so, why?
This is how you cope with something. Figure out what it is.
Yes, I have. It was much more pleasant.
Watch someone live in agony for months, then come back and be a smart ass.
Edit: also, why the fuck would anything you said above matter? Nobody is telling you that you can’t drink, they just want to make sure you know and accept the risks.
I’m sorry for your pain. And the smart ass over there.
They’re anything but smart.
Thanks, I appreciate you.
Currently watching someone live in agony and slowly die from non-alcohol related cancer, you don’t have a monopoly on pain.
No, that’s what education and information campaigns do. You tell people about the dangers of something. Putting warning labels on it is what you do to nag someone every single time they try and enjoy something.
We will all die, and most of the ways to die are horrendously unpleasant. Spend your life slapping warning labels on burnt toast and avoiding going into the sun if you’re that scared of the inevitable and see if it makes you happy.
You should be wearing sunscreen.
“You just need to educate and inform!!!”
“Ok, we’ll educate and inform people using a proven method we’ve already successfully implemented with cigarettes”
“No not like that!!”
I may not have a monopoly on pain, but you’re certainly trying hard to have one on being intentionally obtuse.
Went for the kill in that last sentence!
Is it a contest for you? If so, why?
It’s not a contest, it’s a frank acknowledgement that we will all die and a tiny fraction of the ways to die are pleasant.
Most of us will get cancer or heart disease or dementia and slowly whither away regardless of how we live our lives. At some point, min/maxing and being ultra cautious is utterly pointless.
Cool story
If you want to engage in a discussion about when min / maxing risk-taking vs life-expectancy makes sense on a personal, or regulatory level, I’m all ears…
Otherwise, good contribution. 👏👏👏