We all know medications are regulated. Alcohol pretty much isn't. If you're 21 here in the states, you can buy and consume 'till you possibly hurt yourself(or most likely someone else) and end up in serious troubles. Now while prohibition might sound illogical, i ask you if it would be an answer to alcohol being abused by so many. I speak mostly for the US, as many other juristictions have different regulations(and a hell of a lot less alcohol releated crimes and self intoxicating deaths). Would banning alcohol, and strict enforcement of the ban possibly make the US, or any other area of the world a little bit better to live in? Or would it infringe on many a socialite's choice of lifestyle(hi Natawlie Weigh in people, and thanks.
prohibition didn't outlast the 1930's for a reason, it was a catastrophic failure and would be again. It bred wide-spread crime, corruption, hypocrisy and did absolutely nothing to stop consumption, casual or otherwise. in fact, prohibition is what inspired the cocktail revolution, spawning more drinks than you can count. so no, wide-spread prohibition would not be "the answer". now on the other hand, if we made a database of previous drunken offenders (people who have committed crimes/ caused disturbances under the influence), spread it to retailers and told them they'd face a stiff penalty if these guys cause trouble and were found to be sauced on their stuff, then maybe we might get somewhere. I mean, come on, Kevin Burns released a documentary explaining all this stuff just last month for christ sakes! "Prohibition" check it out.
Understand that it isn't nessasary to open a counterpoint with an inflammitory assumption. No, this was meant as a legit topic. Your database theroy is as bad as the sexual offender database, that does nothing to prevent real offenders from doing just that. It also causes people to single out those that made a horrible choice. But I digress no longer. If such a 'database' were to be compiled, you know it would be singled out as unconstituinal at best, with a wide error of descrepency. Do you understand that many folks have an extreme number of dui's? Yet they are on the road, killing people at their drunken whims. This proves that the criminal database does nothing to deter them. However, I do thank you for the Ken Burns nod. I for certain will watch it- thanks for the input.
from what i understand the US already try baning alcohol.. and we all know how well it end. if you ban one things, you open up the black market for it.
Yep. The black market would have a field day. Old gin runners would make tons of money, there'd be liqour wars, and a lot of smuggling. I never said prohibition would work, but due to all the alcohol releated issues we have(Cirrosis of the liver, many deaths releated to vehicle intoxication, as well as absorbent court and alcohol detox/AA programs) I see no other way to curb it.
Without reading any of the posts, beer and such is own responsiblity. Nothing less and nothing more. But people need to be aware that the can do serious harm with too much beer.
Raise taxes on alcohol to cover the medical costs and other damages caused by it. I don't know about the US but here medical care is free and alcohol is costing us millions.
In Belguim it is illegal that a soda is more expensive then beer. Otherwise all youngsters go and take beer. It is more strict in the UK IRC
In the UK, part of the problem is alcohol is too readily available, and large supermarkets are irresponsible about selling it. It is extremely cheap in large supermarkets, and they are forever running 'bargains' on it, encouraging people to buy more. I'm pretty sure that shops in general aren't quite as strict about asking for ID as they should be. Supposedly they will ask for ID if you look to be under 21/25/30 depending on the shop, but my experience is they don't always. Perhaps that rule should be scrapped and they should ask for ID from everyone buying alcohol no matter how old they appear to be. Fake IDs were also fairly popular in my school so something would have to be done about that. Prohibition did have one benefit, it's where NASCAR originated.
It's like that in the US as well as far as IDing people. I feel that the purchase shouldn't even be valid unless they swipe their ID card. That takes care of the 'not IDing people,' and the fake ID problems.
I dunno. It would probably just be like the prohibition like others stated. An underground operation that no one knows about, but still do. Just like the drug trade.
sorry about how I opened, it was uncalled for. It just irks me terribly to see people eager to repeat history's mistakes. firstly, it wouldn't be a database of simply DUI's, of course that'd be too much. keep the list to people who have are known to cause significant harm to others or themselves while under the influence. secondly, the point was never to deter the alcoholics, but the suppliers. the idea was to instil in retailers of alcohol a reason not to supply known dangerous alcoholics for fear of being severely punished themselves. however, I recognize that there's no truly effective way to legislate moderation, you either end up with blanket laws that punish everyone or monstrously bloated bureaucracy, so broadly defined and full of inconsistencies so as to be of no help to anyone. the only real answer to the problem of irresponsible drinking is moderation on the part of the drinker, which means having a modicum of maturity and discipline, which can only occur from their own experiences. the only vaguely reliable way an outside actor could have an effect, then, is to educate (that's educate, not scare) people on the dangers of alcohol and the virtues of moderation.
US already tried ban on alcohol once and didnt go too well. i believe it would be better to teach at a young age to be responsible with drinking, or any other drug in general.
You could organize a national free booze day. Make any form of alcohol totally free and let the alcoholics gorge themselves then watch them kill each other off in bar fights and car crashes. End of alcoholics. The normal, smart, and moderated people should be warned to stay in their homes though.
Thank you all for weighing in. And thanks to newbie for the detailed yet astute advice, and for apologising. As we all can tell this will not be an easy road to traverse, yet in the end if it's done in its proper context, may help save lives and reduce many a broken family. Moderation and balance are truly the keys to being able to drink; Unfortunetly, being a safe drinker is only a few beers or mixed drinks from being a drunk, or even an alcoholic.And let's face it, alcohol is indeed a gateway drug if I've ever seen one. All those I know of who indulge, typically smoke weed, pop pills, and partake in the truly dangerous drugs(IE:Heroine/methamphetime). I ask you, if you could institute a program or even a national law to moderate drinking, how would you go about it? It's a rough shade of grey, as those who drink rarely ever see in just black and white.
There are so many psychoactive OTC medications that are even easier to get than alcohol. Comparatively there are a lot things like tobacco, dph, dxm, jwh, salvia etc that should probably be regulated more than they are, and should probably be regulated even more than alcohol is. If we're going to start cracking down on dangerous drug availability there are more easily obtainable and more dangerous enemies to focus on. Not to minimize the dangers of alcohol, of course, but to regulate it more than it currently is sounds absolutely intrusive to adults rights given the social context and peoples ability to generally refrain from becoming alcoholic drug addicts. Whether or not you think the world would be better without alcohol (it probably would be) you have no right to try to meld the world to your preferences. If you don't like alcohol then don't drink it, but don't try to stop other people from doing it. I don't like Fresca so I just don't drink it, I'm not going to try to introduce a fucking Constitutional amendment over it. Same things goes with gay sex and anchovy pizza: if you don't like it don't have it but don't be a dick about it. You must not know many people who drink if all of them pop pills and use methamphetamine. The truth of the matter is that almost all U.S. adults drink at one point or another and most of them don't spiral hopelessly into drug addictions. People drink beer and smoke pot recreationally because it can be fun (lol) and to suggest that people are incapable of stopping their casual actions from becoming a crippling lifestyle is condescending at best. tl;dr: no, and legalize marijuana.
As a man with an alcoholism problem I am totally behind this, I obviously need somebody to save me from myself because I really can't do this on my own You don't like anchovy pizza?
No Void im no dick about it. Try telling those killed by drunken fools about who has what right. Most likely you defend it due to you enjoying the lifestyle associated with it. And that is your right of course. However, when anything causes damage alcohol has, we all are affected. I fully agree though on the Mary Jane being legal. But I'm sure the countless mothers, as well as the victims of alcohol's warpath would gladly back any form of more restrictive regulation. Party on the party circuit all you choose, but your idea of fun is convoluted and marred by your inability to see a world of ruin. Rose colored glasses I presume?
