Ban Alchohol NOW!

[pgc hunter]

Society continues to breed gems such as this.

[/URL][url]http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1072189/1 (http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1072189/2)

roflcopter.

Should one of life's last pleasurable and legal freedoms be banned? Discuss.

[AndrewJ]

Sounds like the poster was drunk to me.

Andrew

[Miaplacidus]

Well, I couldn't quite tell, but I suspect he was drunk while he was typing that.

[leon]

No you don't have ban it, just get the users to be more responsible with it.
If one smokes he/she are second class citizens and are rigorously controlled for there habit.
Drinkers on the other hand cause more death, child abuse, antisocial behavior, rape, family dysfunction, violence, and the list goes on, but not much is done to curb this.
The pubs and clubs are open till dawn, any anyone can drink to excess at will.
But smoke a fag in the wrong place and one is nearly arrested.

Leon

[AstralTraveller]

I think JCU should be very concerned that this person was able to obtain a BSc. His argument is shallow and ill conceived and he exhibits profound historical ignorance. He also cannot construct a grammatically correct English sentence and his expression is so poor that his meaning is frequently garbled or lost completely. If I were to receive an essay of this quality, particularly from a third year student, that student would not pass the assessment. The quality of his contribution gives the lie to his assertion that "Sober = clear thinking", or was he drunk at the time? :P

[traveller]

Hear hear Leon.
Unfortunately people are becoming increasingly self focused and dont take actions and be responsible for their own behaviour.
Alcohol and ciggies are our two biggest killers, and yet Govt makes a fortune through taxes and the like (the same for gambling). All three are shown to be extremely addictive as well. Time for Govt to be responsible for all the "sin taxes" they collect rather than for the lot to all go into "consolidated revenue".

[alistairsam]

Is this guy for real? clearly deluded. he can't differentiate between people with control and people without, good and bad, diluted, undiluted aclohol, etc.

There's a huge difference between social drinking and being addicted and causing harm.
no denying ill effects, but banning it causes several other repercussions which I've seen for myself when living in those countries. won't go into that.
I'm surprised he has a BSc. very sad.

[Jeffkop]

:rofl::rofl:Now THAT is funny !!!

The guys english obviously needs some attention, His outlook is too narrow ... but his biggest problem is "Its his way or the highway"

He's got MUCH bigger problems than a drink would give him !!!

[Octane]

Clearly, English isn't his first language.

He's obviously been affected by something traumatic in his life. Have some sympathy, and, let it be.

H

[troypiggo]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Kooks will be kooks, but at least a kook from JCU with a BSc should be able to string a few words together.

[iceman]

Seems like trolling.

[TrevorW]

Ban no control yes, I just don't see the need for pubs and night clubs to be open all night

I've never heard of a smoker killing someeone while driving a car

I've done some stupid things while drunk during my young adult years but the level of violence these days has got out of hand IMO

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Ban booze?
I think they tried that somewhere before without much success. :D

[OzRob]

Yes I watched a documentary series about that not long ago. It clearly didn't work and fed the development of organised crime.

Prohibition (http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/)

Far too much trying to wrap everyone in cotton wool already IMO.

[Kevnool]

Cant ban it when i love it.
Gotta have something to steady the nerves.

Cheers

[GeoffW1]

:rofl::rofl:

I have a mate who has in his career worked overseas in countries where alcohol consumption was severely discouraged in public, although he says it was common in private.

He tells of a person who applied for a job there and quoted him as a referee. He was duly contacted and asked

"Does Mr X have any problems with alcohol?"

He reckons he replied "NOOO, he LOVES it !!"

I think I heard that joke elsewhere though :lol::lol:

Cheers

[Kevnool]

True tho Geoff.
Gotta have a beer or three after work and more on the weekend.

Cheers

[Hagar]

Looks like a post to get a response. If he is for real it does say a lot about his degree and the university which gave it to him. If that is clear thinking all i can say is God help him if he ever gets drunk. He will be an intelectual monster. Literally.

[pgc hunter]

No, this guy's actually for real. He posts similar stuff on another forum:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=992177&highlight=
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1036383&highlight=
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=699124&highlight=


He seems to alternate between trolling and attempting to post knowledgable material from what I've seen reading this bloke's posts.

Ban Alchohol - no way! Never going to happen. Failed experiment. It's already taxed to death in this country - a 750ml bottle of Vodka is worth only about $5, yet we are paying $26 for the cheapest rotgut? My 6 pack of cider cost $12.90 less than a couple of years ago, now it cost that when it's on "special"! And over $20 for a 6 pack of bourbon? What a joke. No more of this nanny state tripe thanks.

IN Hungary I could get a 750ml Vodka for about 7 bucks and 500ml can of beer is as cheap as 50c. But quality of life there, re wages, employment opportunities etc is much worse there than here, it's dirt cheap to me, with an exchange rate of $1AUD = 240 forint, to them it's not.

[blindman]

I would say Avoid psycho Forums :P

[jenchris]

I think I might take him more seriously if he could speak English (or write it). I'm not sure what 'more' is in this circumstance though - more than 1%? well maybe 1.2%....
Hell be selling 'War Cry' soon and banging cymbals on a street corner.
Or maybe he's one of them thar Moslims. They talk a lot about the demon drink - most of them drink a bit of it too.

[Barrykgerdes]

Banning Alcohol would be a great idea. :lol::lol: It would severely limit the drug trade :thumbsup: because all the dealers would move into the illicit liquor business.

The bikie gangs and the tongs etc would make a fortune.

Barry

[Rob_K]

The government should ban anything that is addictive, promotes antisocial behaviour, causes psychological harm and takes money away from families. Ie the four big evils of society: drinking, gambling, smoking and amateur astronomy.

Cheers -

[Huginn]

In theory it is a great idea. If I was 'god' and could go back in time to change one thing, well, I would change a lot of things. Nevertheless, one of those changes would be banning alcohol.

However, as it is cemented in society, it would be impossible to ban it now. As mentioned above.

Unfortunately it is easy to say we need to 'control'. However to actually get clubs to limit their trading hours would not happen at all. Even raising taxes would be impossible. The crux of it is, alcohol is here to stay and there is not much we can do about. It's a cultural thing and it is hard to change culture. You just cannot say 'drink responsibility', most people do... however it is the minority that do the wrong thing.

My personal view, as per smokes, tax the **** out of it. Let the social costs = tax revenue. This seems like a harsh view and letting the minority ruin it for the rest of society.

These may be old figures so I apologise, I'm writing this on the fly.

Tax revenue from Alcohol is $5.5 billion where social cost is $15.3 billion. Therefore alcohol taxes should be raised by 3x to compensate this.

Tobacco tax revenue is close to $5.43b (from projected figures). The social cost is $31.5 billion and as the majority of the social cost is under the medical costs, medicare costs ~18billion a year. Tobacco taxes should be raised higher than the social cost of 31.5 billion to $35b. This way, smokers actually subsidize medicare.

Although this is nice in theory, it is doubtful that it would happen.

[Jeffkop]

Oh thanks for these links .. the second one is halarious .. hes on a new tangent in that one (and wants to forget about grog).. He certainly keeps the rest of the forum entertained ... It cant be for real ... the guy should be into acting .. he has maintained his alter ego perfectly !!!!

[AstralTraveller]

Nice idea, and I don't want to defend tobacco, but I don't think we can go further down that path. Presently the price of a packet of 'nails' is >80% tax (I think it's closer to 90%). I have it on good authority that this is creating a huge black market for illegally imported tobacco ('chop chop'). Apart from diverting taxes from the gov't to nasty criminal elements the health effects of chop chop are worse. It is not dried and treated properly and so contains nasty fungi etc. So on one hand the gov't loses revenue and on the other the social cost increases.

The obvious reply is to 'crack down' on the illegal stuff but we have all seen how ineffectual the 'war on drugs' has been for the past 40 years. Why would a 'war on tobacco' be more effective? Education and culture are our only hope. It's interesting that there are perhaps 60 people in my academic unit and I know of only two smokers. The numbers in Chemistry and Biological Sciences and similarly low and across campus in general smoking rates are low. Yet the rate is much - quite noticeably - higher amongst the construction workers on campus. Fortunately I think the rate of recruitment of young people to smoking is declining.

[casstony]

The companies don't need us anymore - they found new dumb bunnies in China. Perhaps the logical course of action is to buy shares in tobacco companies and make fat profits from uneducated Chinese. It's a beautiful world. :screwy:

[deejayvee]

I think your analysis is a little off on this one. If you look at the breakdown of the $31.5b figure here:
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-3-the-costs-of-smoking-to-australian-society
The actual cost of healthcare is $318.4m

Much of the $31.5b figure (e.g. $9b for premature death, $5b for reduced workforce) are costs to "society", not just the government's budget.

By my reckoning, as far as the government is concerned, tobacco taxes do in fact cover the cost.

[2stroke]

Well your a real Aussie arn't you? I would be much more worried about fat f*%ks and the impact junk food has had on Australians, much more then cigs/drugs/alch. How much are these overweight lard arses costing us each year? As for smoking and cancer well I would be more worried about the effects of driving on the freeway each day to work and the synthetic compounds which they call food. Its really strange how many non-smokers die of cancer, theres no doubt we were not born to smoke and it is harmful, but it's not as bad as they make out to be.

Thats my rant on that....

As for banning alcohol its never going to happen, lol are they going to ban vegemite and O.J. They could stop selling it thats for sure but it would bootleg city, the stills would be working overtime. Now the real reason this will never happen is the same as cigarettes. Heres the simple answere, the goverment doesn't care about your health, it only cares about those tax dollars:rofl: It's just like why you only see speed camera's on freeways and never around schools and hospitals.

The only way to control idots is to educate them. As for the unemployment the heart of this issue its really simple, give them food stamps. Hell if i see another dole bludger with foxtel drinking piss all day in there goverment provided house ill be sick. Now how much are these long term dole bludgers costing us each year vs your smokers and drinkers. No wonder i need a f%$king smoke and beer at the end of a hard week working :welcome:

[pgc hunter]

:thumbsup: Agree. We already are paying WAY too much taxes on both booze and smokes, seriously over $20 for a 6 pack of bourbon or a rum&coke? I've seen single cans for as much as $7.50 down at Woolies :screwy: Even beer seems to cost twice as much here as in the states or Europe. The justification ofcourse is to stop teens binging at their mates parties .. yeah as if :rolleyes: Yes, education would be the answer, which is what any competent proactive govt would do, but now that wouldn't make them money now would it? It's all about tax tax tax and fleecing us in any and every way possible. And with that in mind, no govt is ever going to ban their most lucrative cash cow - just tax it under the typical guise of "protecting ourselves from ourselves". Similarly, that's why we still have revenue cameras at every intersection and hanging under every bridge, and the ludicrous 3kmh tolerance, despite the current mob protesting them vigorously when they were in opposition. :rolleyes:

[pgc hunter]

This guy has alot of other threads, all bloody hilarious, really worth reading them. :rofl: I'd post a link which lists them all, but you need to be member of that forum otherwise it just asks for the login. The thing is, he actually appears to be serious in alot of them! He just has a very odd way of conveying his issues.

[ballaratdragons]

Totally agree Leon.

Forget about the tax dollars and medicare costs for a minute.
Think about the Human cost.

Smokers kill themselves.

Drinkers often, and regularly, kill themselves, other people, and whole families. Usually on the road.
And yet drinking is encouraged!
I have even had it said to me: Your not a 'Bloke' if you don't drink. :screwy:

I don't say Ban it. But it is far worse than the smokes.
Yes it is a problem. No it won't go away.
The only thing I can see that may happen in the future is to ban all advertising of Alcohol like they do with Smokes now.

[KenGee]

Can we ban do gooders and fools instead? Twostroke sound like someone who rides a motorbike and pushes a broom. Can we ban people like that. What the social cost to normal people having to hear his bike and winny voice? See how silly it looks?

So lets see ban booze, cigs, junk food, meat, car's bikes, loud music, stupidity, sport, salt, television should we go on?

People need to get over themselves

[jenchris]

The government is actually on a win and so are the pension companies if you smoke and drink.
When you are ~65, you give up work and start living off a pension - guess when smoking becomes a high mortality issue?
When you're in your 60s - so you smoke and work and drink and work and pay taxes for them and then you retire, smoke and drink for a short while and then drop off the twig.
All monies revert to Coffers - pensions consolidate and say - what a shame, we must ban smoking .... so you've paid tax all the 40 years and then you get a box to lie in and no pension.

[Baddad]

Hi Ken,:)

Smokers kill themselves.

I'd like to add. And people nearby via passive smoking. Particularly those who have no control like young children.
I remember times when I visited housholds where both parents were smoking and a baby in the room.
Cigarette smoke was at the near choking level.

Drinkers often, and regularly, kill themselves, other people, and whole families. Usually on the road.
And yet drinking is encouraged! (I assume you mean through advertising):)

I agree that alcohol advertising should be limited. Banning either would disrupt the economy to the point of near collapse.
The gradual phasing out of smoking seems to be a workable solution.
I expect the same to happen with alcohol eventually.

I don't wish to deny people of their right to smoke, just so long as it does not affect others.

Getting back to our teetotaller aquaintence: I would not dignify his posted comment with a response. We all have varying but similar opinions of him. He does not seem well informed.

"Don't argue with a fool. He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Cheers

[Stardrifter_WA]

Ban alcohol, ban smoking.........why not just ban breathing and be done with it! :D :P

[Huginn]

Ah thank you for that. However you have misinterpreted what I said, my apologises, it's my fault actually for not making myself clear. The figure for medical was actually medicare. My assumption was that the majority of that figure (31.5b) was for medical costs, so thank you on that front. I would love to have tax revenue = social costs + a little more to subsidize medicare.

However as for your last sentence. That is not the case, the total federal and state tax revenue from tobacco was $6,207,360,000 (2006). This figure is 5 times less than the $31.5b.
- http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-6-revenue-from-tobacco-taxes-in-australia

@2stroke.
"Well your a real Aussie arn't you? " Your sarcasm is extending to the fact that I would not care if alcohol is banned? That is the exact problem at the heart of the matter. We should not be so dependent on alcohol. We were not designed to drink alcohol as well as smoke tobacco.

We are expecting the government to subsidize an activity that has a moderate social ramification. Everyone has experienced the bad effects of alcohol. You do raise an important point about needing a beer at the end of the day. let's kill two birds with one stone, Ban alcohol and if you want to wind down at the end of the day, go for a run and get the runners high. :P Just don't get me started on people who spunge and laziness. I would love to see a fat tax put in on fast food.

I'm not so cynical that the government is only interested in taxes. This is because why tax at a lower rate than the social cost?

I live in reality and know that banning isn't the answer especially when alcohol is so ingrained in our society. Oh well, I hope that one day maybe society will change and everyone can control their habits.

[ballaratdragons]

That and through so called Mates. Aussie 'beer buddies' peer pressure is common.
I spent about 10 years being part of the problem (encouraging others), then I had just over 20 years (16 years of that as a Youth Worker) on the flip side dealing with the leftovers of people who had been 'encouraged'.

[FlashDrive]

For me ... I stood up and was honest with myself.

Excessive drinking causes " untold " misery on yourself and those close to you..... It can leave you broke and out of pocket ... very sick ... to the point of damaged organs ( liver/ kidneys ) .... lucky for me .. it didn't get anywhere near that stage.

Smokes .... well ... smoked on and off for roughly 40 years ( now 57 ).... ended up almost a chain smoker when mixed with alcohol.

Haven't had " a beer " at all .... not one ( gospel truth ) .... in 21 years ..... stopped smoking 1' 1/2 years ago.... that took a bit of doing.... one day, I decided enough was enough ... went ' cold turkey ' ... wasn't easy for the 1st month.
I was the worst person to be around ( ask my wife ) .... very irritable.... grumpy ... would snap at the most trivial things

Why ... ? It was just a personal choice I made ..!!!

What I've said here is not to ' impute ' guilt or condemnation to anybody who wants to have a beer or smoke.

All I know is ... my bank account has grown and I am much healthier.

Flash .... :)

[graham.hobart]

Yes people will drink and people will smoke, and the money train will keep turning around and around. As an emergency doctor I often looked at the incomings and would say week in week out 80-90% was drink or drug related, sometimes to the point where there was no one in the department who wasn't affected in some way (Staff not included)
So what are you going to do?
Well, nothing really, because no matter what happens tax or legislation wise, the drinkers will keep on and the smokers will still ignite. You can bear your chest to the full moon and bellow like a buffalo.
Ain't gonna change bucko.
So have a coffee or a barleycup or a beer, and look at that Sky man!
Politic's for them shrewd vote counters, and them back room instigators.
Hoo hah!
It's not becoming to debate such big stuff on an astronomy website.
just my 2 cents.
Off now to drink a massive wine and smoke a huge cigar!
Fidel Grazza:fishing:

[tornado33]

I don't drink myself but I don't support a ban on alcohol. It would mean loss of freedom and an infringement on our human rights. Besides didn't Jesus turn water into wine? He would have changed the water intotea or something if he wanted alcohol banned.

[RB]

Pass me a Partagas Lusitania mate.

;)

[deejayvee]

Now it's my turn to apologise for not being clear :)

I was talking about the direct cost to the government's bottom line. From the figures that make up the $31.5b, it seems to me that only the healthcare costs will be paid for by the government in the budget.

That's not to say that the social costs are unimportant, I just don't see what giving more money to the government would achieve.

[Stardrifter_WA]

And there is the reason alcohol will never be banned: "Government Revenue" :D

[Barrykgerdes]

The effects of alcohol have been known from the beginning of recorded history. Mentioned regularly in the bible.

When God handed down the commandments to Moses:- The list of sins not to be commited. There is no mention of alcohol being sinful to drink or have.

I rest my case.

Barry

[avandonk]

The only way to deal with any problem is harm minimisation. Prohibition just does not work. Education is a part, as well as real help after the damage is done.

Literally tens of thousands of innocent people are being killed in Mexico to fuel the need of illicit drugs in the US per year. Something like 70% of US people in jail are there because of a non violent drug offence. Most are for smoking a weed!

As for alcohol as it is far more dangerous than smoking a weed, the same procedure should apply.

I personally do not think it is a moral problem as it is a medical problem.

Bert

[Kevnool]

I take it then not much alcohol gets consumed at star parties by the sound of this thread then.

[supernova1965]

I drink occasionally maybe 3 to 4 drinks a month but definately not when I am observing my eyes are bad enough without making things worse.

[Kevnool]

It has to be a social event.
Which i love to mingel.

3 a month.......


Cheers Kev.

[AstralTraveller]

I'm not expert on star parties but my experience is 'only when the rain has set in'. Then you can drown your sorrows. :)

Back in the day, when I had good eyesight I could see the detrimental effect of even half a glass of wine. So, no, I never mix the two. BTW I read years ago that in the windies some fishermen who work at night reckon the weed improves night vision. I remember that there was some sort of attempt to test this but I forget the outcome - I expect it was equivocal. I can think of two hypotheses. (1) The muscle relaxing effect dilates the pupil. (2) They are stoned and imaging things. :o

[jenchris]

Fishermen in Bermuda do the same thing. IMHO it works.

[DJVege]

Lol.

Yes of course. Ban Alcohol... don't do anything to the people that do STUPID things when they have too much alcohol.

While we're at it, BAN CARS! We all know there are a tonne of crappy drivers out there. So ban cars = no more crappy drivers.

Ban having children. The number of people out there that just SHOULDN'T have children is waaay too high... so let's ban having children. Problem solved. :lol: Or!!! License people to have kids!!!! Perfect! Before you have kids, you have to undergo an assessment. If you are deemed to be a m0r0n, you're not allowed to have kids. Government should spend what they would on child grants on a vasectomy instead for those people! :eyepop:

lol.

Or....

Discipline your kids, people! Teach them at a young age about alcohol and personal limits!!! Have strict rules regarding drinking when they are under your roof, but stick to the law and let them drink responsibly WITH you!

No, it won't guarantee that your kids won't do something stupid, but it will give them a good knowledge base, and hopefully the maturity and experience, to make good decisions.

[Kevnool]

What an interesting life you have had.

[Jen]

:eyepop: ban alcohol :tasdevil::tasdevil::tasdevil: no way :argue:

Jen would not be happy if she could not have her UDL's waiting for her on a Friday night :lol:

:drink:

:wink2:

[Jen]

Jen has plenty of UDL's at Snake Valley Camp :lol::lol:

[TrevorW]

What do you do with someone who's been convicted of drunk driving 24 times, fine him and suspend his license:shrug:then wait to he kills someone before you put them away.

What do you do for the children of the mother beaten to death by her drunken ex husband because the restraining order was worth jack ****e.

What do you do for the family of the kid stabbed to death by a drunken gate crasher

How do you mend the scars of a beautiful girl glassed by a drunken slob at your local pub for accidentally bumping into them

Get real are we blind or lack the temerity to act, people need to be held accountable for their actions, not slapped on the wrist and sent away, something needs to be done about the excessive drinking problems in our community

We've just got to touchy feelie IMO:screwy:, to many do gooder minority groups lobbying the Govt to protect the rights of the perpetrators treating every one as the victim but not protecting the real victims of alcohol induced violence.

I reckon 10 of the best in a public place may be the answer:question: this walk softly approach has done little IMO to curtail alcohol related issues.

The latest Govt reaction to out of control teenage parties is to fine the parents while the real perpetrators go untouched.

Bring back public flogging and stocks IMO :P:thumbsup: punish crimes against the person for what they are we've gotten to soft we think more about property than the rights of the individual.

I'll get off my soapbox now:thanx:

[Kevnool]

Things are getting bad over in the west.

[DJVege]

Good point TrevorW.

I agree to public floggings (or much harsher punishments in general to suit the crime). This whole "everyone has rights, even criminals" thing is annoying. If you're convicted of doing the crime, you should be punished, not slapped on the wrist.

Of course, there is that small issue of "what if they get the wrong person and an innocent gets punished?"

That's the pain of implementing a good judicial system. No matter what rules and laws you put in place, there will be a way to "cheat" the system. So we end up being ridiculously 'soft' in some areas, and 'hard' in others.

Which of course is why I will get angry every time I see murder cases, rape cases, assault etc... and equally angry when the victim can't do anything, besides a restraining order, to keep their "drunken ex's" away.

True prevention of crime = culling civil liberties.

Until then, it's wait for the crime, prove innocent/guilty, then punish.