Imagine if you could spend a tiny amount of money and achieve the following:

- fewer DUI and car accidents
- fewer instances of assaults
- fewer instances of domestic violence
- fewer homicides
- fewer suicides
- fewer cases of heart disease and stroke
- fewer cases of cancer
- fewer cases of rape
- fewer cases of liver and kidney disease
- fewer cases of infidelity/adultery
- fewer broken homes and divorces
- fewer child birth defects
- less obesity
- less promiscuity and therefore less STD transmission
- fewer homeless
- fewer teenage pregnancies
- fewer abortions
- greater avg life expectancy
- greater avg education levels and higher graduation rates
- higher avg level of analytical ability in the population
- healthier population
- fewer cases of depression

Well, we actually can. Long ago, people realized the negative impacts of alcohol on society. They tried banning it here in America, but of course, alcohol is one of the most addictive substances on Earth and it is so easily made that the project was a failure.

But what if we tried a different approach?, which invited bootleggers and organized criminals to gain power and build a black market economy around it, why not instead focus on an aggressive ad campaign, much like we did for smoking? We have successfully reduced smoking rates (and overall tobacco product usage) tremendously, and much of it is due to indoctrinating the youth with anti smoking ads. People were successfully able to make smoking go from "cool" to "disgusting". We could do the same for alcohol.

It would probably cost under $5 million to make a really good set of anti-alcohol ads, maybe contracted from the people who made Geico ads or something. Just make some catchy anti alcohol ads awaring people on the dangers, and play that chit during sports games, on news commercials, on youtube, etc. Eventually, it will catch on, and the next generation will not get into drinking. It's so simple, and yet would be so powerful. Think about how much better off society would be. Sure, the restaurant, sex, casino, and hotel industries would not like this very much, but our entire society would be so much better off. It would translate to real increases in quality of life across the board for everyone.

Surely companies like Diageo (100b+ market cap) and the companies heavily invested in them will be on board with this (ded fkn Srs)

Why do you think it an ad campaign would be effective? Hasn't it been shown that the d.a.r.e programs in school are even sometimes counterproductive?

No thanks, I'll keep my whiskey.

Agree 100% on every point. It's crazy to me how much alcohol is pushed.

The anti smoking ones were extremely effective. DARE didn't work for other reasons, I think. But we have seen a huge decline in smoking.

I am pro freedom.

**** u commie

but i need it to loosen up

Honestly, wincel, we have had some back and forth on many topic, and you are completely out of it, but I would rather have a world without the

a) alcohol

b) tobacco

c) fashion

industries.

Srs.

Also, Singaporean laws for drug dealers/smugglers.

Good luck with that.

I think the greatest obstacle is that for 99% of people alcohol is perfectly fine. It's the 1% who don't know how to handle themselves. It's more similar to guns really, and for that reason I don't think prohibition is ever coming back.

I don't know if that's a good comparison though as cigarette companies aren't really allowed to advertise themselves.

That can always be changed lol. Cigarette companies used to advertise everywhere. Member Marlborough Man? Joe Camel? Winston Cup?

I'd be all for it. The DUI rates and drunks in bars are outrageous in Wyoming alone. I worked security in a bar where it wasn't uncommon to see people start to pass out at 8pm.

Anti smoking ads didn't necessarily work it was the bans on smoking in public places that really curbed it. Tons of people still smoke though.

DARE didn’t work because it was mainly people of authority pushing an anti drug stance by exaggerating while not being able to connect to the audience. The shift against smoking was more successful because it a.) came from various sources(not just cops or teachers at school) b.) painted smoking in a disgusting light with facts instead of hyperbole like “2 packs of cigarettes will fry your lungs”, and c.) convinced people that it was their own idea smoking was disgusting instead of having the concept assigned to them by authority figures. The large taxes always played a significant role, especially for younger people who didn’t have much money.


Agree on all fronts with your points about pushing back against alcohol though. It is terrible on a personal and societal level. The campaign would be much more difficult though, and would require people to honestly reflect on how stupid alcohol can make you(and your decision making). The trouble with that is that it can fun, so convincing people to focus more on the negatives would be harder than the push against tobacco. Also, it is a preferred tool of self-medication for people dealing with trauma…and moving away from that on a societal scale would be extremely difficult. Plus our society is very impulsive and focused on instant gratification instead of sacrificing the present moment in order to obtain a better future. That’s another obstacle in the way when it comes to shifting our perspective of/approach towards alcohol.


Like I said though I agree it’s a huge issue and something that would pay off on tons of fronts if we could successfully do it.

Sure, but if you look at the benefits just across the board, and the cost of a tiny ad campaign, I don't see the problem. (Except that a huge chunk of this country has an alcohol issue, and doesn't want to admit it.) And ofc, this wouldn't ban alcohol in any way. It would simply inform people the same way the smoking ads did.

I think the ads/campaign did help, but you make a good point about banning it in so many places. And that’s another thing that would make an anti-alcohol campaign more difficult. If a restaurant bans smoking it probably doesn’t affect traffic that much and on a large scale reduces smoking. If they did the same with alcohol people would just eat and drink at home more.

They started the ads right around the late 60's IIRC, and got really aggro about it in the 2000's. Pretty consistent with the decline.

Keep in mind the ads would be super cheap to make for the expected payoff. Even if there is only a 5% chance it works, it would be worth doing just for the enormous potential benefit. It would translate to hundreds of billions of dollars saved in healthcare, crime, and other costs to society. It would translate to real productivity increases in other ways that would largely offset the economic hit to industries reliant on alcohol.

a lot of those are indirect outside of dui's

you could prob write some positives too

like it de-stresses people who dont go overboard with it

and indirect financial incentives from the banning too. you mean: no bars/ clubs and a huge industry in restaurant business. nightlife taking a substantial hit. less people going out overall so prob huge plazas and land would go deserted

Nope.

I read a massive book about prohibition. Prohibition was a women's movement that put pressure on politicians because women's suffrage was a forgone conclusion at that point.

It failed miserably, BUT alcohol consumption was greatly reduced in the wake of the movement. The amount people used to drink was exponentially higher in the late 1800's, early 1900's than it was post-repeal.

Literally the entire reason for being alive is to have fun, and drinking is fun AF. If it was banned again, I'd buy yeast packets and make my own.

They'd still be free to drink. I'm advocating for an ad campaign, not a ban.

Nah, tobacco was harder to turn around because of this. You used to be able to smoke literally at school, in an airplane, at every restaurant-even McDonalds, literally everywhere. It was ubiquitous. Alcohol is already super limited where you can consume, only certain restaurants-and def not fast food lol nor in public. Basically you can only drink at bars, stadiums, and home. They can start by hard limiting across the board to 2 drinks max and then no mas. They already do this at concerts and shows, should do that at bars.

Get creative with laws, ban alcohol sales to anyone with a DUI in the past 5 years. Ads showing the livers of people with cirrhosis. The before and after of hard drinking, showing the weight gain, the intelligence lost, the jobs lost. I've never seen a legit smoker lady with the hole in the throat but you can literally find posterboy of alcohol abuse in every city corner tho.

They successfully reduced smoking not with anti smoking campaigns but they jacked up the price from like 2 dollars to 20 dollars per pack.

It's a mindblowing concept, but people actually can and do enjoy life without alcohol. They still go to restaurants, clubs, etc.

hah

yeah the youth aren't smoking cigs anymore

they are vaping and hitting dabs and smoking weed.

I know, what I'm telling you is that boozing HAS already gone down a lot from its peak .... The biggest step in that direction was prohibition.

Compared to the year 1900, people barely drink at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if the decline has continued for the last 20 years or so.

No ad campaign needed.

I still remember the DARE officer coming into our 5th grade classroom saying how even 1 beer could kill you. My dad would get home from work after like a 12 hour day and have a beer or two and I began thinking my dad was going to die.