Abolition of Alcohol

[danieldemol]

Weed isn't the big problem though. I mean monkey dust, heroin, spice etc. Buying it legally is irrelevant to the hazards to the user (and those they come into unfortunate contact with). A zombie standing on a rootop declaring he can fly has to be dealt with by the police. Then he jumps off and ends up in an NHS hospital bed. (This was a typical, recent local event). That would be all different if the user had bought the drug legally wouldn't it; not. Our hospitals require funding to deal with the consequences of drug use. (And anyway the NHS could be funded adequately already but isn't for political reasons, to drive its privatisation).
Local shops selling such drugs would be a real boon wouldn't it. My local shops are already struggling because people stay out of the town altogether. Why do they do that? Because of all the druggies.

Yeah.... great idea.

Yes it would be different if the drugs were legal, you could have safe spaces for the consumption of harder drugs such as injecting rooms that take the problem off the street. Getting the druggies off the streets would be a boon for business, not the problem you currently have where druggies don't have a legally allocated safe space so they have nowhere but the streets to shoot up/ snort etc etc.

In my opinion.

 

[oldbadger]

I never advocated banning alcohol.

Excellent ... That is fine.

 

[oldbadger]

Weed isn't the big problem though. I mean monkey dust, heroin, spice etc. Buying it legally is irrelevant to the hazards to the user (and those they come into unfortunate contact with). A zombie standing on a rootop declaring he can fly has to be dealt with by the police. Then he jumps off and ends up in an NHS hospital bed. (This was a typical, recent local event). That would be all different if the user had bought the drug legally wouldn't it; not. Our hospitals require funding to deal with the consequences of drug use. (And anyway the NHS could be funded adequately already but isn't for political reasons, to drive its privatisation).
Local shops selling such drugs would be a real boon wouldn't it. My local shops are already struggling because people stay out of the town altogether. Why do they do that? Because of all the druggies.

Yeah.... great idea.

Yes.... It is a great idea, SC.
What your sarcasm missed in your point was that the NHS requires funding to deal with idiots who drive stupidly, etc.
Our local chemist is already allowed to sell hemp lotions and gum and folks don't stay out of towns because of druggies.
We waste billions over policing of crime and gangs involved with drugs, and if licensed premises could supply these then the gangs would have to do something else
Think of the tax returns on drug taxation, SC.

 

[Secret Chief]

NHS requires funding to deal with idiots who drive stupidly, etc.

Whataboutery. Totally irrelevant to the matter of legalisation of drugs.

Our local chemist is already allowed to sell hemp lotions and gum

And shampoo and mouthwash. That has got nothing to do with chemists selling monkey dust.

folks don't stay out of towns because of druggies.

Maybe not in your town, they CERTAINLY do in mine.

We waste billions over policing of crime and gangs involved with drugs, and if licensed premises could supply these then the gangs would have to do something else

They would. But that is also irrelevant to the issue of the deleterious effects of drugs on the individual and, hence, society. The gangs could focus on people trafficking, extortion, protection rackets etc etc whilst the chemists keep the spice-heads happy. I look forward to waiting for my prescription while one of them is buying their fix.

Think of the tax returns on drug taxation

Think of the tax returns on things that aren't rotting society. That's why the government likes tobacco and alcohol : the tax returns. No incentive to curtail use. Think of the government taxing corporations properly, taxing the rich properly, spending money on nurses rather than royal yachts. A whole different topic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is all about personal choice so yes we can educate people against alcohol and junk food and let them make informed choices.

Regards Tony

Very good -- but please remember that educating people so that they can make informed choices is a very different thing than banning those choices altogether.

 

[Vinayaka]

You decide whether this is worth not educating on the risks of drinking. I'm not advocating anything but presenting these facts to kids.

These facts are already presented, and more.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That most likely is the solution to this OP. The way to start addressing the needs of all, is most easier achieved when we become reconciled as one human family, as nothing short of this will work?

Family help each other.

Regards Tony

A good thought, but see my post #308

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have an opinion that alcohol is not needed, that it a substitute for spirituality, but I don't think the world is set up to make that a maxim that a teacher would present.

I find it amusing that you would suppose that whatever it is that YOU like, anybody doing something else must be doing so as a substitute for your preference. Are you the "standard model" human?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Fair enough. Just junk food then?

Define "junk food" rigorously, so that it can put into a coherent law.

 

[GardenLady]

Take the guy who quietly sips 6 beers a day, after work. It's not really moderation, but nor is it abuse compared to the guy who downs a 40 every day.

The 6-beer guy is drinking less than the 40-beer guy, yes. But that does not mean is it not abuse, just because the other abuses on an Olympic level. I would say that anyone who has 6 or more drinks a day is seriously abusing alcohol, their liver, and their brain.

 

[Vinayaka]

The 6-beer guy is drinking less than the 40-beer guy, yes. But that does not mean is it not abuse, just because the other abuses on an Olympic level. I would say that anyone who has 6 or more drinks a day is seriously abusing alcohol, their liver, and their brain.

By 40, I meant 40 ounces of hard liquor. Each person is free to draw their own conclusions on where the line for abuse is. It was an example to illustrate the range. According to some, 1 drink a year would be abuse.

 

[Secret Chief]

The 6-beer guy is drinking less than the 40-beer guy, yes. But that does not mean is it not abuse, just because the other abuses on an Olympic level. I would say that anyone who has 6 or more drinks a day is seriously abusing alcohol, their liver, and their brain.

You are correct, in fact way past the advised level of consumption.

From the UK National Health Service website:

"To keep health risks from alcohol to a low level if you drink most weeks:

• men and women are advised not to drink more than 14 units a week on a regular basis
• spread your drinking over 3 or more days if you regularly drink as much as 14 units a week
• if you want to cut down, try to have several drink-free days each week

Fourteen units is equivalent to 6 pints of average-strength beer or 10 small glasses of low-strength wine."

- Alcohol units

 

[oldbadger]

Whataboutery. Totally irrelevant to the matter of legalisation of drugs.

And shampoo and mouthwash. That has got nothing to do with chemists selling monkey dust.

Maybe not in your town, they CERTAINLY do in mine.

They would. But that is also irrelevant to the issue of the deleterious effects of drugs on the individual and, hence, society. The gangs could focus on people trafficking, extortion, protection rackets etc etc whilst the chemists keep the spice-heads happy. I look forward to waiting for my prescription while one of them is buying their fix.

Think of the tax returns on things that aren't rotting society. That's why the government likes tobacco and alcohol : the tax returns. No incentive to curtail use. Think of the government taxing corporations properly, taxing the rich properly, spending money on nurses rather than royal yachts. A whole different topic.

No...SC.
I cannot agree with you on any single point that you have made.

Our society would rebalance itself once cannabis and a few other drugs were legalised and sold through licensed premises, mostly anywhere that sells alcohol plus pharmacies.

Our police would be much more careful over stop/searches, have more time to police and deter other crimes such as burglary, robbery, rape etc and be able to put more resources in to this work.

Income through taxation would float our NHS or whatever.

Drug gangs would reduce.

There are other benefits as well, and more police to patrol your town centre, SC.

 

[ecco]

Some times the simple answers are the best but the more complicated in the implementation.

Like one planet one people. Simple observation, but complex to instill the realisation into the minds of all.

Answers are not answers unless they contain realistic means of implementation. Barbara Bush's "Just say no" is a good example of that.

The only way to "instill the realisation into the minds of all" is through thorough and complete brainwashing. Is that part of your solution?

 

[Secret Chief]

I cannot agree with you on any single point that you have made.

Same here.

 

[ecco]

Think of the tax returns on things that aren't rotting society. That's why the government likes tobacco and alcohol : the tax returns.

Think about the cost of prohibition. America tried it. Alcohol and drugs. Alcohol prohibition led to the creation of powerful gangs that still exist today. It also led to an acceptance of corruption and vast scales.

In many parts of America, marijuana is now legal. Yes, the state governments are taxing the sales. However, they are not spending money
and resources arresting, trying, and confining people.

No incentive to curtail use.

Why do you think the use of marijuana and alcohol should be curtailed?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exactly. You think anyone should be able to take anything, and then deal with the mess afterwards.

I think you don't have a clue what I think, and need to stop being rude.

 

[Secret Chief]

Think about the cost of prohibition.

I haven't advocated for prohibition, I realise it wouldn't be a good idea. I have seen Boardwalk Empire, duh!

Why do you think the use of marijuana and alcohol should be curtailed?

I don't really know much about the former, the latter - because of the cost to the individual and society. I was a moderate alcohol consumer for 40 years so I realise I'm not a lifelong living example.

 

[Secret Chief]

I think you don't have a clue what I think, and need to stop being rude.

You think "I don't think the government has the right to prohibit its citizens from ingesting any substance they please." Feel free to explain why that isn't a recipe for societal disaster.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Rude? So explain why "I don't think the government has the right to prohibit its citizens from ingesting any substance they please" isn't an idiotic idea.

I'm not talking to you with your attitude. I don't owe you anything. Maybe try being civil and I'll change my mind.