Ban Alchohol NOW!

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

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. It would severely limit the drug trade 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 (Aaron)]

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 (Jeff)]

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

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

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...177&highlight=
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...383&highlight=
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...124&highlight=

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 (David)]

Originally Posted by Huginn

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.

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]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

. Fortunately I think the rate of recruitment of young people to smoking is declining.

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.

[deejayvee (David)]

Originally Posted by Huginn

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.

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...ralian-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 (Jay)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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

[pgc hunter]

Originally Posted by 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 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

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 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 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.

[pgc hunter]

Originally Posted by 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 !!!!

This guy has alot of other threads, all bloody hilarious, really worth reading them. 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 (Ken)]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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 (Kenith Gee)]

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 (Jennifer)]

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 (Marty)]

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!

[Huginn (Aaron)]

Originally Posted by 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...ralian-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.

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...s-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. 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 (Ken)]

Originally Posted by Baddad

Hi Ken,

. . . 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)

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 (Poppy)]

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 (Graham stevens)]

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