From our other sites
The story
A social media post about giving a child a non-alcoholic drink drew a wave of criticism, sparking discussion on a 5ch thread. Under Japan’s Liquor Tax Act, “non-alcoholic” beverages with under 1% alcohol content aren’t classified as alcohol, and most domestic products are labeled 0.00%. The “not recommended for under 20” notice isn’t a legal age restriction either — it’s just a voluntary industry standard. The thread split between skeptics asking “is there any reason besides showing off?” and defenders arguing “it’s basically juice, so getting mad about it is the weird part,” with plenty of posts turning to psychoanalyze the critics themselves.
What people said
Just idiots whose lives aren't going well looking for a target to rage at online.
Exactly this.
People whose lives aren't going well just find someone to hate on.
They can only parent in their fantasies,
so unless it matches their shallow idea of "my perfect parenting," you're a "toxic parent."
You even get people on social media going "if you're a real parent, make your crying kid stop crying NOW!! Look like you're sorry!!"
But fantasy parenting is like inputting a command and the kid stops crying — reality doesn't work that way.
Most parents, the second their kid starts crying, at least bow their head once like "ah… sorry…"
Watching idiots like this,
you can tell REAL clearly
that people whose lives aren't going well are attacking out of pure 'jealousy' —
"in my fantasy parenting I'd do it better, so why does that guy get praised and not me?"
These people are sick.
Even "non-alcoholic" can contain under 1% alcohol, so it's safer not to give it to kids.
Non-alcoholic isn't alcohol though, is it?
When I was in 1st grade I told my uncle I wanted to try that fizzy drink he was having.
I had no idea what beer even was — to me it was just a pretty-colored juice, nothing more.
It's usually lower in alcohol than your average fruit drink.
Less alcohol than kids' Shanmeri (the sparkling non-alcoholic "champagne" sold for children).
As long as it's not against the law, it should be fine, right?
By that logic, drinking actual alcohol at work wouldn't be illegal either.
Non-alc at the office is just asking for confusion though.
Man, what a hard world we live in now.
You can't even tell non-alc beer apart from the real thing.
Just pour a non-alc lemon sour into a random water bottle and drink it that way.
It just means you're allowed to call it that if you're under the threshold.
I guess that means it's fine for kids to drink then?
Japanese products are mostly labeled 0.00%.
Same with celebrity affairs or politician scandals — I don't get it at all.
Exactly. Most people don't even care, but if a handful of people rage about it, it gets treated like "public opinion." That's messed up.
There needs to be a proper line drawn.
Seeing someone get pathetically drunk would put you off wanting to drink, wouldn't it?
It's just a recommendation, that's all.
Honestly that's just a perk of the job.
Cut them some slack for that much at least.
Yeah, I get cutting some slack for a perk.
But that's different from a Chiikawa fan who wants one taking just one for themselves —
cleaning out the whole batch to resell is pretty gross.
Though honestly, even "I just took one" would probably blow up just as much these days.
Just drink juice.
This, seriously.
Anything under the 1% threshold is allowed to be sold as "non-alcoholic."
These days it's 0.00%.
We all got to have a taste of actual alcohol every once in a while as kids too.
Yeah, most of us have had that one time we got a little sip.
"ugh, who cares?"
It'd snowball into a whole thing on its own.
Sure it becomes a hassle, but
the ones actually causing the hassle are the complainers.
Bacchus and Rummy (chocolate liqueur candies) have it too.
Of course, it's properly in there.
Classic childhood moment: getting a chocolate from your parents and it turns out to be a whiskey bonbon!
Truck drivers drinking it.
Background and Key Points of the Debate
Under Japan’s Liquor Tax Act, a drink only needs to be under 1% alcohol to be labeled “non-alcoholic” — since it’s considered non-intoxicating, it isn’t classified as alcohol. Most major domestic brands list 0.00% on the label, but some candies like whiskey bonbons and certain other drinks do contain trace amounts of alcohol, and the thread often conflated the two. There’s also a common misunderstanding that the “not recommended for under 20” warning is a legal age restriction — it’s actually just a voluntary industry guideline, not something set by the Liquor Tax Act. What really divided the thread wasn’t the act itself but the motives of the critics: some saw the backlash as driven by “jealousy” or people with too much time on their hands, while others took the cooler view that posting online invites exactly this kind of reaction. Some posters brought up the Kura Sushi prize-reselling controversy for comparison, hinting at a broader fatigue with how easily things blow up online these days.
※This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5ch “Nanademo Jikkyo G” (Whatever’s Happening General) board thread “[Sad News] We’ve Entered an Era Where You Get Dragged Just for Giving Your Own Kid a Non-Alcoholic Drink lolololololololol.”
Leave a Reply