General Discussion

Tanuki

(15,663 posts) Fri Jan 3, 2025, 02:42 PM Jan 3

Surgeon General calls for cancer warning on alcohol

(Gift link- no paywall)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/03/health/alcohol-surgeon-general-warning.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mU4.II98.ehEI8YLTPyao&smid=url-share

"Alcohol is a leading preventable cause of cancer, and alcoholic beverages should carry a warning label as packs of cigarettes do, the U.S. surgeon general said on Friday.
.....
Labels currently affixed to bottles and cans of alcoholic beverages warn about drinking while pregnant or before driving and operating other machinery, and about general “health risks.”

But alcohol directly contributes to 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 related deaths each year, the surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, said.

He called for updating the labels to include a heightened risk of breast cancer, colon cancer and at least five other malignancies now linked by scientific studies to alcohol." (More at link )

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Surgeon General calls for cancer warning on alcohol (Original Post) Tanuki Jan 3 OP

Alcohol is a scourge all across society in general. Clouds Passing Jan 3 #1

Congress should pass a constitutional amendment banning it. maxsolomon Jan 3 #2

Prohibition resulted in more deaths than not having Prohibition would have alarimer Jan 3 #3

Defensiveness is not a good sign. Clouds Passing Jan 3 #6

I know that. I'm not for a for a ban. They don't work. Clouds Passing Jan 3 #4

I think the younger generations drink less alcohol JI7 Jan 3 #5

Only when used to excess dickthegrouch Jan 3 #8

Can we put warning labels on dangerous cabinet members? dickthegrouch Jan 3 #7

Clouds Passing

(4,001 posts)

1. Alcohol is a scourge all across society in general.

Reply to Tanuki (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2025, 04:33 PM

Jan 3

maxsolomon

(36,024 posts)

2. Congress should pass a constitutional amendment banning it.

Reply to Clouds Passing (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 3, 2025, 04:42 PM

Jan 3

Or maybe just prohibiting its manufacture and consumption. Does "Prohibition" sound like a catchy name?

Why settle for half measures like warning labels?

alarimer

(16,928 posts)

3. Prohibition resulted in more deaths than not having Prohibition would have

Reply to Clouds Passing (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 3, 2025, 05:37 PM

Jan 3

They drank bathtub gin, wood alcohol and other things. Not to mention, it caused the rise of the mob and organized crime in a huge way.

So, a big fat "NO" to the new puritanism.

Face it, people will drink, one way or another. They have forever and no amount of finger-wagging by prim scolds will stop that.

And facing the Trump Adminstration without drinking is never going to happen. I'd rather die a few years earlier that live until Im 90 anyway,

Clouds Passing

(4,001 posts)

6. Defensiveness is not a good sign.

Reply to alarimer (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 3, 2025, 07:45 PM

Jan 3

Clouds Passing

(4,001 posts)

4. I know that. I'm not for a for a ban. They don't work.

Reply to Clouds Passing (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 3, 2025, 07:32 PM

Jan 3

But what else is not working is the millions of people whose lives have been damaged and destroyed because of alcohol,, emotionally, physically, generationally…….