What is driving the current “anti alcohol” rhetoric online

porchrat said:
Again, different hybrids of marijuana have different effects. The marijuana itself is a unique experience.


Of course the taste is altering the experience. You're hitting your taste buds with multiple molecules at once. It changes the way your taste buds, perceive what you're tasting. It brings out different flavours. That's happening in your tastebuds and your brain. It's not altering reality, it's altering your perception.


Just like it's impossible to replicate the exact experience you have with some drug using some other, like alcohol.

They're all just different variants of the same overall concept: altering/enhancing experiences.

This is not a concept unique to alcohol. Yes the specific enhancement/experience is unique to a specific alcohol, but the same can be said for any number of drugs.
Click to expand...
Plus just because alcohol and tobacco have been legal for longer, it's not seen as them being addictive and a form of drugs.
 
Lupus said:
Sommelier you heathen... :-P but yes they have done that a few times. I mean here is coke if you had it described like a "fine" wine
The Pour and Visual Presentation
This iconic, deep-mahogany cuvée displays a stunning, opaque core with rich, burnt-sienna highlights along the rim. Upon agitation, it exhibits an aggressive, energetic effervescence that creates a thick, short-lived tan mousse. This rapid bead immediately releases an intense bouquet into the glass.
The Nose
The bouquet is highly aromatic, forward, and uncommonly complex. Up front, it delivers a dominant wave of Madagascar vanilla bean and warm baking spices, primarily Ceylon cinnamon and freshly grated nutmeg. As the initial aroma breathes, a sharp, bright burst of expressed citrus oil emerges—predominantly Meyer lemon and Persian lime zest. This fruit profile is balanced by an earthy, medicinal undertone of kola nut and a faint, herbaceous whisper of spent coca leaf.
The Palate and Structure
On the palate, this liquid is intensely full-bodied with a viscous, syrupy mouthfeel that commands immediate attention. It attacks with a high, unapologetic residual sugar content. However, this dense sweetness is instantly structured and cut through by a sharp, linear phosphoric acidity. The carbonation provides a prickly, texturing astringency that mimics a youthful tannin structure, cleansing the palate and preventing the weight from becoming cloying. Mid-palate notes reveal deeply caramelised sugars, dark molasses, and a faint hint of sweet coriander.
The Finish
The finish is exceptionally long, persistent, and remarkably consistent across vintages. It leaves a lingering, velvety coating of spun sugar and vanilla, offset by a crisp, clean metallic snap of carbonation. It is a highly reliable, non-vintage blend engineered for immediate consumption, showing no need for cellar ageing, and pairing exquisitely with charred, fire-roasted meats.
Click to expand...
The OG Coca Cola needs no such introduction. If someone can't tell the difference between it and its inferior imposters they should be tarred and feathered.
 
Lupus said:
Plus just because alcohol and tobacco have been legal for longer, it's not seen as them being addictive and a form of drugs.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Alcohol is unhealthy. Always has been. The societal acceptability of alcohol is the only reason it isn't strictly regulated like any other drug.

Don't get me wrong. I drink most weekends and some evenings during the week too. I enjoy it. I just don't pretend it's healthy or good for me. I simply drink because I enjoy it.

I also don't pretend it isn't extremely destructive for society as a whole. Many people cannot handle the responsibility of drinking the way I do. They can't help but become addicted. I fully understand youngsters these days deciding they're not going to drink. Honestly it's a healthy choice. Good on them.
 
Lupus said:
And I'm sure there are people who smoke weed for the flavour, but at the end of the day, goes along with people smoking cigars, cigarette brands and such.
You cannot tell me that people smoke cause they 100% like it and it's not addictive, alchohol is the same, people drink not for the flavour and aroma, but cause they're addicted to something in it. Or need it to relax, or socialise or to something, same reason you'd smoke weed.
Alcohol is a drug, a destructive drug that newer generations are moving away from.
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming 100%, but I have yet to meet a single human who even hints at smoking weed for the taste of it.
On the other other hand, I have come across literally 100's of people who profess to smoke cigars or drink whisky/wine for the flavours and aromas .
For sure, alcohol is a drug, nicotine is a drug, sugar is a drug...all are addictive. But I don't reckon that's why a sub-culture (apologies...I can't think of a better term) of younger people are distancing themselves publicly (and in many cases very wankily) from booze.
 
porchrat said:
Indeed.

Alcohol is unhealthy. Always has been. The societal acceptability of alcohol is the only reason it isn't strictly regulated like any other drug.

Don't get me wrong. I drink most weekends and some evenings during the week too. I enjoy it. I just don't pretend it's healthy or good for me. I simply drink because I enjoy it.

I also don't pretend it isn't extremely destructive for society as a whole. Many people cannot handle the responsibility of drinking the way I do. They can't help but become addicted. I fully understand youngsters these days deciding they're not going to drink. Honestly it's a healthy choice. Good on them.
Click to expand...
You're partially addicted as well ;-) but it's fine, you know it is, there are just people who're far more addicted than you are.
This is a common saying from smokers as well, I simply smoke because I enjoy it. But it's fine, you do you, just as you stated people need to understand that it's got no benefits and people turning away from it isn't a bad thing.
You want to drink that's cool, no one is stopping you as it's not against the law. As long as you don't drive or do anything that puts anyone elses life at risk.
 
KulQkumba said:
I'm not claiming 100%, but I have yet to meet a single human who even hints at smoking weed for the taste of it.
On the other other hand, I have come across literally 100's of people who profess to smoke cigars or drink whisky/wine for the flavours and aromas .
For sure, alcohol is a drug, nicotine is a drug, sugar is a drug...all are addictive. But I don't reckon that's why a sub-culture (apologies...I can't think of a better term) of younger people are distancing themselves publicly (and in many cases very wankily) from booze.
Click to expand...
Sugar isn't addictive like alcohol or nicotine, it can trigger some dopamine triggers, but it's not addictive in the same way as those two. There is no sugar withdrawals like there are for the others, people just get a slight dopamine rush from it.
 
porchrat said:
Again, different hybrids of marijuana have different effects. The marijuana itself is a unique experience.
Click to expand...
No man - how can we be misunderstanding each other on something this basic? With different strains of marijuana, it is still the intoxicating effect of the marijuana which is the experience.

When doing wine tasting, the taste, while still completely sober, is the experience. When pairing with food, the taste, while still completely sober, is the experience.

You only become intoxicated with alcohol much later, and only if you keep consuming past the initial taste experience.

You do not go to a wine tasting to get drunk. You might get drunk while at a wine tasting, but only if you stay on to finish off the bottles.

You go to a marijuana experience to get high. You are not going to taste the different strains, you are going to experience their phycoactive, mind altering effect.
porchrat said:
Of course the taste is altering the experience. You're hitting your taste buds with multiple molecules at once. It changes the way your taste buds, perceive what you're tasting. It brings out different flavours. That's happening in your tastebuds and your brain. It's not altering reality, the flavours were always there. Instead it's altering your perception, your ability to taste those flavours.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is all happening without any intoxication. Like I said, you can easily continue drinking past the tatsing experience, and then become intoxicated - but the tasting experience is a sober experience.
porchrat said:
Just like it's impossible to replicate the exact experience you have with some drug using some other, like alcohol.
Click to expand...
But tasting wine, or food and wine pairings is not something you experience because of the effect of any drug. The narcotic effect, if any, only comes afterwards.
porchrat said:
They're all just different variants of the same overall concept: altering/enhancing experiences.
Click to expand...
No - this is the part you seem to not want to understand. Wine tasting, Whiskey Tasting, Beer Tasting, Food and Wine Pairing experiences are just that. The food and wine is the experience. If you then choose to order a bottle of the wine and continue drinking until you experience a mind altering effect, that is a seperate thing all together - and admittdly one I often do. But the base experience was the food and the wines taste - while still being sober.
porchrat said:
This is not a concept unique to alcohol. Yes the specific enhancement/experience is unique to a specific alcohol, but the same can be said for any number of drugs.
Click to expand...
Again, the alchohol in the wine or whiskey is not the experience (when talking about tastings, pairings etc) - When you crack a bottle, crush the lid and say, right, lets get shitfaced, then yes, the alcohol is the experience.
Lupus said:
Plus just because alcohol and tobacco have been legal for longer, it's not seen as them being addictive and a form of drugs.
Click to expand...
We are 15 pages into this thread already - no one has suggested any of what you have just said.
 
Lupus said:
Sugar isn't addictive like alcohol or nicotine, it can trigger some dopamine triggers, but it's not addictive in the same way as those two. There is no sugar withdrawals like there are for the others, people just get a slight dopamine rush from it.
Click to expand...
Please tell me you are not being serious???
 
Lupus said:
Sugar isn't addictive like alcohol or nicotine, it can trigger some dopamine triggers, but it's not addictive in the same way as those two. There is no sugar withdrawals like there are for the others, people just get a slight dopamine rush from it.
Click to expand...
Sure there's no official clinical consensus on true sugar addiction, but there's a ton of neuroscience research that shows sugar hijacks the exact same reward pathways in our brains that official addictive substances do. ...and then there is caffeine...
Anyways...we digress. What actually caught my attention from the OP:

So, what is up with this cringy social media craze of promoting how much better your life is without alcohol. It seems so fake, and lame - and it’s also hard to believe their is any real commercial interest that would be interested in driving content creators towards this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's because I just don't get the whole influencer thing in general. It just doesn't seem to be about what people are actually doing but more about everyone seeing them doing something . And the trends are all about being seen to jump on the flavour-of-the-month bandwagon rather than any real change
 
Lupus said:
Sugar is not addictive, not like your alcohol you sell.
Click to expand...
You’re choosing a very specific definition of “addictive” and then treating it as settled science. Addiction isn't defined simply by whether something produces the same physical withdrawal syndrome as alcohol or nicotine.

Highly palatable, sugar-rich foods can activate the brain's reward pathways, produce dopamine-mediated reinforcement, and in some experimental models repeated consumption produces behavioural and neurobiological changes associated with dependence. There is a substantial scientific literature debating whether “food addiction” should be considered analogous to substance-use disorders, particularly with highly processed foods.

So saying “sugar isn't addictive, it just gives you a dopamine rush” is not really an argument. That dopamine-mediated reinforcement is part of the mechanism by which addictive behaviours and substances become reinforcing in the first place.

By your definition, cocaine wouldn't be addictive either. You seem to be confusing ‘doesn't produce the same withdrawal syndrome as alcohol’ with ‘cannot be addictive’. Those are very different propositions.
 
KulQkumba said:
Sure there's no official clinical consensus on true sugar addiction, but there's a ton of neuroscience research that shows sugar hijacks the exact same reward pathways in our brains that official addictive substances do. ...and then there is caffeine...
Anyways...we digress. What actually caught my attention from the OP:



Perhaps it's because I just don't get the whole influencer thing in general. It just doesn't seem to be about what people are actually doing but more about everyone seeing them doing something . And the trends are all about being seen to jump on the flavour-of-the-month bandwagon rather than any real change
Click to expand...
Plenty of things hijack your reward pathways, doesn't make them addictive. Hence why there are clinical defintions of addiction.
It's not only influencers, it's a general thing I've even noticed about Gen Z, if they do have a drink it'll be one. They also seem to be home sooner from a night out then we would've been.
 
Lupus said:
Plenty of things hijack your reward pathways, doesn't make them addictive. Hence why there are clinical defintions of addiction.
It's not only influencers, it's a general thing I've even noticed about Gen Z, if they do have a drink it'll be one. They also seem to be home sooner from a night out then we would've been.
Click to expand...
Addiction and impulse control are two sides of the same coin. Someone with impulse control issues can just as easily get hooked on sugar as they could on alcohol.

One path could see you ending up in rehad, or dying from liver failure in extreme cases (but luckilly livers are pretty good at reparing themselves if you give them a chance).

The other will go buy mostly unoticed until one day they need to start lobbing off your appendages and your kidneys start to fail (kindeys on the other hand, cant repair themselves - when they give up its dailysis or death, unless you can get a transplant, and you arent getting a transplant unless you are generally healthy - which means that sugar addiction is still going to be problem)
 
Zellephant said:
You’re choosing a very specific definition of “addictive” and then treating it as settled science. Addiction isn't defined simply by whether something produces the same physical withdrawal syndrome as alcohol or nicotine.

Highly palatable, sugar-rich foods can activate the brain's reward pathways, produce dopamine-mediated reinforcement, and in some experimental models repeated consumption produces behavioural and neurobiological changes associated with dependence. There is a substantial scientific literature debating whether “food addiction” should be considered analogous to substance-use disorders, particularly with highly processed foods.

So saying “sugar isn't addictive, it just gives you a dopamine rush” is not really an argument. That dopamine-mediated reinforcement is part of the mechanism by which addictive behaviours and substances become reinforcing in the first place.

By your definition, cocaine wouldn't be addictive either. You seem to be confusing ‘doesn't produce the same withdrawal syndrome as alcohol’ with ‘cannot be addictive’. Those are very different propositions.
Click to expand...
That's precisely what addiction is. Something can be habit forming which can be seen as addiction, but it's not addiction.
If you can't tell the difference you have issues, sugar can be habit forming but it's not addictive. Caffeine is mildly addictive sure, but still not like nicotine and alcohol.

Sugar addiction: the state of the science - PMC

As obesity rates continue to climb, the notion that overconsumption reflects an underlying ‘food addiction’ (FA) has become increasingly influential. An increasingly popular theory is that sugar acts as an addictive agent, eliciting neurobiological ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Zellephant said:
There are real physical and mental health benefits to responsible alcohol consumption and always have been.
Click to expand...

Apologies @Zellephant, but I have to ask which benefits are those ?


PS: I'm going to be extremely honest and serious here for a moment, truthfully, I deeply despise alcohol, I'm not going to go into the who, what, when, where, why, and how.
 
You guys still playing pigeon chess with a drunk?
I mean if half of your argument is about cooking with alcohol. Geez I am a bit of a cook myself and I am sure less than 0.001% of recipes involves alcohol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X