Isn't the "deep core" of the opposition to tags (and other coercive solutions) about what their effectiveness might imply about the narratives about alcohol (and other drugs) misuse?
Effectiveness of the tags suggest that many people might be able to individually change their pattern of drinking (or stop altogether) IF GIVEN ENOUGH INCENTIVE, which goes both against the religion-rooted AA/12-stepper notion of "being powerless" and needing "higher power" to effect behavioural change, and the disease-model, stigma-reducing idea (often associated with leftish politics) which essentially proposes the same idea, tho a deity is replaced by professional programs and therapists. This is commonly applied to not just alcohol overuse but anything from disordered eating to other substance misuse and all kinds of behavioural change. And just for clarity -- I'm not claiming behavioural change is easy, I also am sure that for many people it's so hard that effectively they are not capable of sustainable change of some behaviours, but on the other hand there's also both research and plenty of anecdotal evidence that people commonly effect such change without professional or quasi-religious support when motivated enough: from giving up smoking to vastly reducing their drinking to ceasing to use opioids or other highly physiologically addictive drugs (and 2 steps programmes seemed appallingly ineffective on the surface of the data the last time I looked).
So what's behind this opposition (apart from self interest if you run such programmes) is interesting...
The biggest help for keeping people sober while having a good time is developing more alcohol-free & low-alcohol drinks that taste good. When I still frequented pubs (frequently) all you could order in that category was Spa water - either flat (blue) of fizzy (red). Although usually they also had some leftover coffee in the machine from several hours earlier. Times are changing ! Even Max Verstappen goes for 0 beer - and wow, he never looked so yummy as in that commercial ! I More types of wine without alcohol can now be found, as well as a variety of cocktails. Alcohol-free is no longer for sissies, but for everyone with a brain - and a liver.
What about my comment is insulting towards those who drink alcohol - responsibly? And what is wrong with having a good time and still be able to drive home?
Great piece Chris. As always you expose these people for the evidence avoiding charlatans they are. The idea of writing a blog post and mentioning limitations without actually outlining is in my view corrupt. It’s part of the way universities try to persuade the unwary innumerate policy activist. None of these people will look at the actual paper, nor are they capable of doing so. The idea that you shouldn’t use something which works over something which delays the problem is of course all about these public health chancers continuing to coerce us, and keeping their shoddy curtain twitching racket going.
Isn't the "deep core" of the opposition to tags (and other coercive solutions) about what their effectiveness might imply about the narratives about alcohol (and other drugs) misuse?
Effectiveness of the tags suggest that many people might be able to individually change their pattern of drinking (or stop altogether) IF GIVEN ENOUGH INCENTIVE, which goes both against the religion-rooted AA/12-stepper notion of "being powerless" and needing "higher power" to effect behavioural change, and the disease-model, stigma-reducing idea (often associated with leftish politics) which essentially proposes the same idea, tho a deity is replaced by professional programs and therapists. This is commonly applied to not just alcohol overuse but anything from disordered eating to other substance misuse and all kinds of behavioural change. And just for clarity -- I'm not claiming behavioural change is easy, I also am sure that for many people it's so hard that effectively they are not capable of sustainable change of some behaviours, but on the other hand there's also both research and plenty of anecdotal evidence that people commonly effect such change without professional or quasi-religious support when motivated enough: from giving up smoking to vastly reducing their drinking to ceasing to use opioids or other highly physiologically addictive drugs (and 2 steps programmes seemed appallingly ineffective on the surface of the data the last time I looked).
So what's behind this opposition (apart from self interest if you run such programmes) is interesting...
The biggest help for keeping people sober while having a good time is developing more alcohol-free & low-alcohol drinks that taste good. When I still frequented pubs (frequently) all you could order in that category was Spa water - either flat (blue) of fizzy (red). Although usually they also had some leftover coffee in the machine from several hours earlier. Times are changing ! Even Max Verstappen goes for 0 beer - and wow, he never looked so yummy as in that commercial ! I More types of wine without alcohol can now be found, as well as a variety of cocktails. Alcohol-free is no longer for sissies, but for everyone with a brain - and a liver.
Indeed our friends at Diageo and co have created some superb alcohol-free beverages but I just don't know whether abstaining is worth the risk: https://snowdon.substack.com/p/moderate-drinking-and-its-enemies
I don't think that insulting those who enjoy alcohol is very persuasive.
What about my comment is insulting towards those who drink alcohol - responsibly? And what is wrong with having a good time and still be able to drive home?
I quote, "for everyone with a brain." You insult as not having a brain everyone who enjoys alcohol.
Wow, the wowser lobby really just gives the game away with this one!
Great piece Chris. As always you expose these people for the evidence avoiding charlatans they are. The idea of writing a blog post and mentioning limitations without actually outlining is in my view corrupt. It’s part of the way universities try to persuade the unwary innumerate policy activist. None of these people will look at the actual paper, nor are they capable of doing so. The idea that you shouldn’t use something which works over something which delays the problem is of course all about these public health chancers continuing to coerce us, and keeping their shoddy curtain twitching racket going.