you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I'm also German but nobody should advertise harmful drugs to children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, and 0,0% beer in Germany can have up to 0,04999...% alcohol while unlabeled anything may have up to 1.2% (fruit juice often has like 0.3% or so)

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkoholfrei

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    I was under the impression that "alkoholfrei" / "alcohol free" could be up to 0.5%, whereas 0.0% really needed to be without any alcohol. Your link is only about the first case, if I read it correctly. They do state though that "without alcohol" should really be without.

    Edit: further research seems to indicate that it is unfortunately not quite clear and you are correct: ". Sobald der vorhandene Alkoholgehalt mindestens 0,05 Volumenprozent beträgt, ist die Angabe „alkoholfrei“ um die Angabe „(< 0,5 % vol)“ zu ergänzen." - https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/weinv_1995/WeinV_1995.pdf -> only once you exceed 0.05% do you need to declare <0.5%

    Very disappointing indeed. Why not have them call it <0.5% and <0.05% and have the customer take an informed decision? Of course because the industry then says: "Dear government this is too hard, let us deceive the customers 🥺"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    There's no deception: <0.05 rounds to the two significant digits 0.0 (0.050001 would round to 0.1)

    It's impossible to have absolutely no alcohol in something that had sugar and living micro-organisms in it at any point: e.g. fruits and therefore juice have alcohol.

    That why you don't need to label anything with less than 1.2% alcohol. You can only be sure that something has less when it says 0.0% or „alkoholfrei“.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Agreed, but also including teenagers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    So 19yr olds shouldn't be advertised to? What's the cut off?

    I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.

    But lacking that, I don't see an issue with advertising universally. And if we're going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. "Teenagers" includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly, you're right, but the issue is deeper than that. Ads like this indoctrinate people that aren't even children - this includes teenagers past 13 and even adults of varying stages.

    Advertising harmful drugs shouldnt be done at all - but in the meantime, teenagers and even young adults should be except. Also the killing part is a totally different issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at "Children" by nature of using the term "Under Age." I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment