As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769

If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.

--
Rhino

On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
> added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
> more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>
> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
> since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>
Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.

On 2023-01-17 20:44:45 +0000, suzeeq said:
> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>> various cancers.
>>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>
>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>
> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.

Yeah, but that was probably last week. This week it's a different
idiotic "study" that "proves" a different conclusion, and next week
there will be yet another "study" that "proves" yet an different
conclusion. There are "studies" (no doubt paid for by the alcohol
sellers) that say "moderate" drinking of alcohol is good for you.

Basically almost all "studies" are completely pointless, badly run,
nonsense that simply wastes piles of money and time. The health-related
ones can even be downright dangerous, thanks to bad reporting in the
mass media news.

On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>> various cancers.
>>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>
>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>
> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.

According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
without increasing the risk.

Perhaps the research is faulty?

--
Rhino

On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>> various cancers.
>>>
>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>
>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>>
>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>
> According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
> amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
> two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
> without increasing the risk.
>
> Perhaps the research is faulty?
>
Does wine count?

People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they have
other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them together.

On 2023-01-17 6:42 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>>> various cancers.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>>
>>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>>>
>>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>>
>> According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
>> amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
>> two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
>> without increasing the risk.
>>
>> Perhaps the research is faulty?
>>
> Does wine count?
>
Read the article; it seems to include beer, wine, and the hard stuff....

> People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they have
> other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them together.

I don't know if they've factored smoking into their results.

--
Rhino

In article <tq6pp3$397b3$1@dont-email.me>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
> added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
> more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>
> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
> since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.

There's a piece in the bimonthly magazine my local ISP sends out about
"nutrition labels" for broadband plans:

The Federal Communications Commission intends to require internet
providers to prominently display a "nutrition label" clearly detailing
the specifics of each plan. The FCC passed a rule late last year
clearing the way for this change, although implementation may take time
and require additional input.

The intent is to eliminate hidden fees, confusion about data caps and
uncertainty about speeds and generally to shine a bright light on what
can be a confusing choice.

Each label will show key information -- details wise consumers should
consider now:

* Monthly price and contract length
* Whether that price will change after a certain period and, if so, what
it will change to
* A complete list of monthly and one-time fees, as well as any early
termination fee
* Whether the company participates in the Affordable Connectivity
Program and a link to check if the consumer qualifies
* Typical download and upload speeds
* Data cap and price for exceeding that cap
* And more

The FCC must complete additional steps before implementing this change,
and internet service providers will have time to update websites and
other sales material.

They also show a sample label, looks just like one of those nutrition
labels you see on food packaging.

On 2023-01-17 23:42:56 +0000, suzeeq said:
> On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>>> various cancers.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>>
>>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>>
>>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>>
>> According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
>> amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
>> two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
>> without increasing the risk.
>>
>> Perhaps the research is faulty?
>
> Does wine count?
>
> People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they
> have other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them
> together.

"Studies" are never bothered about any of those other possibilities.
They are only ever interested in "proving" whatever the person /
company paying for it wants it to "prove". :-\

On 2023-01-17 23:54:28 +0000, super70s said:
> In article <tq6pp3$397b3$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
>> added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
>> more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.
>>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>
>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
>> since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>
> There's a piece in the bimonthly magazine my local ISP sends out about
> "nutrition labels" for broadband plans:
>
>
> The Federal Communications Commission intends to require internet
> providers to prominently display a "nutrition label" clearly detailing
> the specifics of each plan. The FCC passed a rule late last year
> clearing the way for this change, although implementation may take time
> and require additional input.
>
> The intent is to eliminate hidden fees, confusion about data caps and
> uncertainty about speeds and generally to shine a bright light on what
> can be a confusing choice.
>
> Each label will show key information -- details wise consumers should
> consider now:
>
> * Monthly price and contract length
> * Whether that price will change after a certain period and, if so, what
> it will change to
> * A complete list of monthly and one-time fees, as well as any early
> termination fee
> * Whether the company participates in the Affordable Connectivity
> Program and a link to check if the consumer qualifies
> * Typical download and upload speeds
> * Data cap and price for exceeding that cap
> * And more
>
> The FCC must complete additional steps before implementing this change,
> and internet service providers will have time to update websites and
> other sales material.
>
>
> They also show a sample label, looks just like one of those nutrition
> labels you see on food packaging.

And prices will rise because the greedy telecoms companies can no
longer con people into paying more than they should be by confusing
them with lots of marginally different plans.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 6:43:02 PM UTC-5, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
> > On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> >> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
> >>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
> >>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
> >>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
> >>> various cancers.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
> >>>
> >>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
> >>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
> >>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
> >>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
> >>>
> >> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
> >
> > According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
> > amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
> > two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
> > without increasing the risk.
> >
> > Perhaps the research is faulty?
> >
> Does wine count?
>
> People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they have
> other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them together.

My theory is if you smoke, drink and chase women and make it to 70 years of age or older, for gawd sakes don't quit now, it's probably what's keeping you alive.

Keep drinking that wine Suzeeq, you know what is best for yourself.

On 1/17/2023 4:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-01-17 20:44:45 +0000, suzeeq said:
>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>> various cancers.
>>>
>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>
>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>
>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>
> Yeah, but that was probably last week. This week it's a different
> idiotic "study" that "proves" a different conclusion, and next week
> there will be yet another "study" that "proves" yet an different
> conclusion. There are "studies" (no doubt paid for by the alcohol
> sellers) that say "moderate" drinking of alcohol is good for you.
>
> Basically almost all "studies" are completely pointless, badly run,
> nonsense that simply wastes piles of money and time. The health-related
> ones can even be downright dangerous, thanks to bad reporting in the
> mass media news.

My favorite has long been that one beer makes you a safer driver than no
beers. I choose not to plumb its veracity...

On 1/17/2023 6:42 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>>> various cancers.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>>
>>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>>>
>>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>>
>> According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
>> amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
>> two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
>> without increasing the risk.
>>
>> Perhaps the research is faulty?
>>
> Does wine count?
>
> People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they have
> other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them together.

Well, they're *supposed* to control for obvious co-factors...

On 2023-01-18 03:24:18 +0000, moviePig said:
> On 1/17/2023 6:42 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>>>> various cancers.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>>>
>>>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>>>
>>>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>>>
>>> According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
>>> amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
>>> two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
>>> without increasing the risk.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the research is faulty?
>>
>> Does wine count?
>>
>> People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they
>> have other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them
>> together.
>
> Well, they're *supposed* to control for obvious co-factors...

The problem is that the fools running the "studies" usually don't even
know what those "co-factors" could be - there are simply far too many
possibilities. They may be "studying" the cancer effects of alcohol,
but who can say if the subject got cancer because they ate a bacon
sandwich or another subject didn't get cancer because they ate cucumber
sandwich instead, neither of which has anything to do with alcohol and
would be completely ignored and unnoticed by the "study".

On 1/17/23 9:22 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 4:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-01-17 20:44:45 +0000, suzeeq said:
>>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>>> various cancers.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>>
>>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>>
>>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>>
>> Yeah, but that was probably last week. This week it's a different
>> idiotic "study" that "proves" a different conclusion, and next week
>> there will be yet another "study" that "proves" yet an different
>> conclusion. There are "studies" (no doubt paid for by the alcohol
>> sellers) that say "moderate" drinking of alcohol is good for you.
>>
>> Basically almost all "studies" are completely pointless, badly run,
>> nonsense that simply wastes piles of money and time. The
>> health-related ones can even be downright dangerous, thanks to bad
>> reporting in the mass media news.
>
> My favorite has long been that one beer makes you a safer driver than no
> beers.  I choose not to plumb its veracity...

My favorite is the WKRP episode where Johnny was taking a sobriety test
and got better the more he drank.

On 1/17/23 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:35:31 UTC-5, Rhino wrote:
>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
>> added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
>> more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.
>>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>
>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
>> since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>
>> --
>> Rhino
>
> Most things used to abuse are dangerous, I honestly doubt a drink a day would shorten a lifespan due to cancer (what about liver disease?) labels will likely have no great effect, alcohol is nothing like cigarettes which can kill you 100 different ways and people were well aware of that so warning there along with myriad government programs to advertise the threat.

Thank you for your expert medical opinion.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
>added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
>more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.

>https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769

>If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
>since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.

C'mon, Rhino. You're not following the science. If you walk by the aisle
in the grocery store with packaged liquor for sale without buying any,
YOU ARE GONNA DIE.

Oh! It's for The Children.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:

>>>As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>>labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>>anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>>various cancers.

>>>https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769

>>>If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>>government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>>consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>>voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.

>>Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.

>According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
>amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
>two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
>without increasing the risk.

>Perhaps the research is faulty?

The study was an excuse for the researchers to charge their bar bills to
the research grant.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 13:35:13 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
>added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
>more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.
>
>https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>
>If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
>since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.

And a healthier population and a government able to spend less is a
bad thing because ?!?!?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:34:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>C'mon, Rhino. You're not following the science. If you walk by the aisle
>in the grocery store with packaged liquor for sale without buying any,
>YOU ARE GONNA DIE.
>
>Oh! It's for The Children.

In Canada it's highly unusual to be able to buy alcoholic potables
besides wine in the grocery store. Admittedly there are usual liquor
stores close by the major grocery stores - in fact TWO within a block
of the grocery store I normally shop at.

(And there's a proposal to allow a recreational marijuana store across
the aisle in the mall from one of those liquor stores though they're
planning on walling off that section of the mall to require you to go
outside and about a 200' detour - and it often rains in Vancouver as
Rhino knows! - to get to it "to protect the children". My view -
which I've said to the municipal council in a public forum - is that
the liquor stores manage to keep out kids without difficulty so why
would a pot shop either be challenged to do likewise or expect to keep
their business licence if they don't?)

On 2023-01-18 20:45:59 +0000, The Horny Goat said:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 13:35:13 -0500, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
>> added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
>> more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.
>>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>
>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
>> since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>
> And a healthier population and a government able to spend less is a
> bad thing because ?!?!?

The alcohol (and tobacco) taxes aren't actually spent solely on
healthcare for people suffering the effects of their own idiotic
choices. The money goes into the usual big money pot to be used on
whatever silly project the government comes up with to waste it on.

In the push to force people into silly electric cars, the morons in
government here came up with the idea of giving a rebate to buyers of
electric / hybrid cars. To cover this, they added an extra tax to
petrol and diesel cars, and the whole thing was supposed to be
self-contained. Unsurprisingly, the purchase of electric cars is
soaring, the purchase of petrol / diesel cars falling, and the they're
running out of money to pay out the rebate, so now they thinking about
decreasing the rebate amount while raising the tax amount.

They'll soon relaise they've go a similar problem due to the fact that
electric car owners do not currently pay any form of petrol tax or road
user tax, so will have to start charging them something as well,
otherwise there wil be no taxes coming in to (supposedly) pay for the
roads maintenance ... not that they do much since there are huge
complaints about all the potholes and a new road recently had it's
tarseal coating pealing off and coating people's car tyres - TWICE, the
original pealing was resurfaced and it happened again!!

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:42:56 -0800, suzeeq wrote:

> On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
> > On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> > > On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
> > > > As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
> > > > labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
> > > > anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
> > > > various cancers.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
> > > >
> > > > If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
> > > > government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
> > > > consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
> > > > voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
> > > Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
> >
> > According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
> > amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
> > two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
> > without increasing the risk.
> >
> > Perhaps the research is faulty?
> Does wine count?
>
> People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they have
> other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them together.

There is alcohol in wine. Think of drinking alcohol as like
cigarettes in their cancer causing propensity: Having 10 drinks
in a year is like smoking 10 cigarettes in a year. A "drink
with dinner" is like a cigarette with dinner.

Teaching kids to drink is like teaching kids to smoke.

On 2023-01-18 22:15:35 +0000, Pluted Pup said:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:42:56 -0800, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 2:36 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-17 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2023 10:35 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning
>>>>> labels added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear:
>>>>> anything more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for
>>>>> various cancers.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>>>>>
>>>>> If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>>>> government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>>>> consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at
>>>>> voters since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>>>> Two a week? I thought it was two per day. But that's in CAnada.
>>>
>>> According to the article, previous studies vastly over-estimated the
>>> amount of alcohol people could drink without doing themselves harm so
>>> two drinks is the most one can drink according to the new research
>>> without increasing the risk.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the research is faulty?
>>
>> Does wine count?
>>
>> People who drink hard liquor frequently, also smoke too. Maybe they have
>> other habits which also contribute to cancer, or it's all of them together.
>
> There is alcohol in wine. Think of drinking alcohol as like
> cigarettes in their cancer causing propensity: Having 10 drinks
> in a year is like smoking 10 cigarettes in a year. A "drink
> with dinner" is like a cigarette with dinner.
>
> Teaching kids to drink is like teaching kids to smoke.

Without using some common sense (admittedly extremely rare) everything
you eat or drink can kill you ... including plain water. So does that
mean everything will have to have a health warning on it?? It already
has "serving size" on the nutrition information labels.

A nanny state is not needed nor wanted. If morons want to smoke, booze,
or drug themselves to death, then that's thankfully one less idiot on
the planet. BUT the tax-payer, where they have free public health
systems, should not be paying for the consequences of those idiot
choices.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:34:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>As per the subject line, experts are hoping to see cancer-warning labels
>>added to alcohol bottles, saying that the science is clear: anything
>>more than 2 drinks per week puts you at increased risk for various cancers.
>
>>https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/alcohol-cancer-risk-warning-1.6715769
>
>>If the labels actually work to reduce alcohol consumption, the
>>government will find itself with a conundrum. If it reduces alcohol
>>consumption via these labels, it will have less money to throw at voters
>>since alcohol is fairly heavily taxed.
>
>C'mon, Rhino. You're not following the science. If you walk by the aisle
>in the grocery store with packaged liquor for sale without buying any,
>YOU ARE GONNA DIE.

I think that's true for all of us whether we walk by the cancerous
liquor or not. Just not today if we are lucky.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 19:21:16 -0500, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>C'mon, Rhino. You're not following the science. If you walk by the aisle
>>in the grocery store with packaged liquor for sale without buying any,
>>YOU ARE GONNA DIE.
>
>I think that's true for all of us whether we walk by the cancerous
>liquor or not. Just not today if we are lucky.

Give us 200 years we're all dead. Though in my case during the last 12
months I've lost a wife (65), aunt (82) and uncle (87) all in separate
incidents.

Tends to make one more aware of one's mortality though determined not
to go quietly.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:09:34 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 19:21:16 -0500, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>>C'mon, Rhino. You're not following the science. If you walk by the aisle
>>>in the grocery store with packaged liquor for sale without buying any,
>>>YOU ARE GONNA DIE.
>>
>>I think that's true for all of us whether we walk by the cancerous
>>liquor or not. Just not today if we are lucky.
>
>Give us 200 years we're all dead. Though in my case during the last 12
>months I've lost a wife (65), aunt (82) and uncle (87) all in separate
>incidents.
>
>Tends to make one more aware of one's mortality though determined not
>to go quietly.

Yeah, I've had that awareness tuned in from the loss of family members
over the last few years. Then there's what seems to be the constant
drum beat of various celebrities dying over the years. Celebs that I
watched as a kid is bad enough but then you have people that seemed to
be coming up in their careers at the same time of you who are passing
away. It's all a constant reminder that none of us are going to be
here forever.