Ban Alchohol NOW! - Page 3

tornado33 · #41 12-02-2012, 08:50 PM

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 (Andrew) · #42 12-02-2012, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham.hobart

Off now to drink a massive wine and smoke a huge cigar!

Pass me a Partagas Lusitania mate.

deejayvee (David) · #43 13-02-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huginn

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

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 · #44 13-02-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...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.

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

Barrykgerdes · #45 13-02-2012, 04:05 PM

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 · #46 13-02-2012, 04:31 PM

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 (Kev) · #47 13-02-2012, 07:19 PM

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

supernova1965 (Warren) · #48 13-02-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevnool

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

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 (Kev) · #49 13-02-2012, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

3 a month.......

Cheers Kev.

AstralTraveller (David) · #50 13-02-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevnool

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

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.

jenchris (Jennifer) · #51 13-02-2012, 11:32 PM

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

DJVege · #52 14-02-2012, 02:41 PM

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.

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!

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 (Kev) · #53 14-02-2012, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

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.

What an interesting life you have had.

Jen · #54 14-02-2012, 10:56 PM

ban alcohol no way

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

Jen · #55 14-02-2012, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevnool

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

Jen has plenty of UDL's at Snake Valley Camp

TrevorW · #56 15-02-2012, 11:46 AM

What do you do with someone who's been convicted of drunk driving 24 times, fine him and suspend his license

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

, 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

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

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

Kevnool (Kev) · #57 15-02-2012, 10:19 PM

Things are getting bad over in the west.

DJVege · #58 16-02-2012, 09:13 AM

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.