View Poll Results: Should we propose further alcohol control?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 11.76%
  • No

    23 67.65%
  • Other

    7 20.59%
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 178

Thread: Time for Alcohol Control?

  1. #41
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Considering all the talk of gun control lately, let's review the facts around alcohol and consider some further restrictions around another "death causer."
    That is alcohol.

    CDC figures on alcohol related deaths.



    FASTSTATS - Alcohol Use



    CDC - Impaired Driving Facts - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center



    WHO | Alcohol

    I propose,

    A background check system, for all alcohol purchases, supported by a fee, probably $25 per purchase.

    A limit to the amount of alcohol containers, that can be purchased per day.

    The limiting of alcohol percentages per volume, probably 5% or less.

    What say you?

    Although I'm not a fan of alcoholism, unlike other controversial products the primary victim is the person who chooses to ingest alcohol. However I would not be opposed to breathalyzers installed on commercial vehicles as well as cars operated by drivers with a recent history of drunk driving with use required at start up. Due to the potential for malfunction in an emergency, I'd say all vehicles should still operate in all cases but any over the limit readings automatically send alerts to the vehicles owners as well as law enforcement and the vehicle's location is tracked so the whoever needs to know may verify it was a false reading or an accurate reading leading to the intoxicated operator arrested and prosecuted if it was driven.

    I'm also okay with discounted health, auto and life insurance premiums for those of us who do not engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices on a wide range of categories including excessive alcohol consumption. We can verify it at least to some extent by having a no cost drivers license special "no-alcohol" photo background color. This is already done for younger drivers in my state where those under 21 have a yellow background on the DL photo but for those 21 and over the background is light blue. It doesn't cost anybody any fees. It just alerts bars, restaurants and stores that the potential buyer of an alcoholic beverage was under the legal age at the time the license was issued and to check the date of birth to make sure he/she is now legal. This could be offered at no cost to everybody upon request regardless of age, then the insurance companies can offer a discount everyone with a yellow background. The only hassle would be bars, restaurants and stores would have to start carding everyone and not sell adult beverages to anybody with a yellow DL even if they're 50. Its not 100% full-proof but what is?
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  2. #42
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,458
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    What about all the other alcohol related problems like, violence, rape and disease?
    Doesn't society have a compelling public interest to restrict alcohol, so that less people die?
    Why do you need to be able to buy large amounts of beer, wine and spirits?
    Being a victim of bad parenting can lead to problems like, violence, rape and disease. And?

    Like Tucker wrote, your argument is asinine. Only a few want to completely prohibit guns while most want stronger gun laws. Based-on all of the gun related deaths in the US, there is a need for stronger laws. If you're a responsible gun owner and are legally sane, then your gun(s) will not be pried from your hands.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    Being a victim of bad parenting can lead to problems like, violence, rape and disease. And?
    Does that excuse alcohol related crimes and deaths?

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    Like Tucker wrote, your argument is asinine. Only a few want to completely prohibit guns while most want stronger gun laws. Based-on all of the gun related deaths in the US, there is a need for stronger laws. If you're a responsible gun owner and are legally sane, then your gun(s) will not be pried from your hands.
    Then you're both making straw men.
    I did not say prohibit alcohol, I said control alcohol, albeit more than it is now.

    I'm presenting a situation, which may come into conflict with what many believe to be reasonable controls on firearms, but are not reasonable for alcohol.
    Why is it not?

    Besides medical and industrial uses, what benefit, other than recreation and relaxation does alcohol provide and why should we continue to allow greater access, when thousands of people die and are harmed by alcohol related causes?
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 01-10-13 at 11:00 AM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    Adam Shepard

  4. #44
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,552

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I wish Americans abused less, but I think it is apples and oranges where each merit different discussions in a more serious way.
    Why? Way more people are killed by a drunk driver than by gun deaths. Alcoholism is a serious issue...one mostly swept under the rug, so-to-speak. Driving while intoxicated...is a super problem (regardless if the driver is alcoholic or not).

    And how many gun deaths are related to alcohol consumption...? Our prisons are filled with people that committed crimes - that were done while under the influence of alcohol, not to mention other mind altering chemicals.

    You can call it "apple or oranges", but I call it another "individual's actions that took the life of another - because......" situation. If we can't define problems, we can't come up with solutions.

    In cases involving gun deaths...or alcohol deaths...they both seem to occur from unpredictable behaviors by individuals that used some instrument related to a death.

    I think we better understand how to predict behaviors better. But at the point in time...I don't think that's humanly possible. So what's a viable answer or solution that might significantly reduce the number of gun and alcohol related deaths?

  5. #45
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Are you sure alcohol is far more regulated than guns are?
    Yes. For example, you would be allowed to possess a loaded firearm in a car which I am driving in many more states than you could legally possess an open alcoholic beverage in a car which I am driving.

    Going further, there are more places where you would be allowed to carry a loaded firearm in public (both openly and concealed) than there are places where you are allowed to openly carry alcoholic beverages in public.

    If I have a large personal collection of firearms, I can sell those firearms legally without facing , even here in Illinois. I cannot, however, legally sell a large personal collection of alcohol without facing some severe consequences and punishment for selling alcohol without a license.

    Alcohol is more regulated than guns. Just because there is no background check to purchase alcohol (although there is an identity check, and purveyors of alcohol can face severe penalties if they fail to perform these identity checks or if they perform them incompetently) doesn't mean that it is less regulated.


    I'm not calling for prohibition of alcohol.
    I'm asking if there should be further alcohol control.
    The effects of alcohol spread farther and the benefits, are superficial at best.
    Each local municipality has the right to enact such control if they so choose, and many do. There are quite a few "dry" counties and towns in the country (many of which even ban the possession of alcohol in one's own home). Whereas McDonald v. Chicago now prevents such local ordinances from existing for guns. That's why the comparison here is deeply flawed (your goal of comparison does not compute with the realities of the way the two are currently regulated, and where the primary power to regulate locally lies).

    While I was personally happy about the McDonald v. Chicago ruling for personal reasons (I was directly affected by the ruling in a positive way as a resident of Chicago, and I admitted to my hypocrisy on this when the ruling was made), politically I consider it to be a hypocritical degradation of state and local rights in favor of a big government nanny state by many of the same people who oppose the reverse occurring when it comes down to other issues that they do not support personally (such as gay marriage, many libertarians excluded from that example).

    I personally oppose the vast majority of federal laws in both directions: both from the permissive and restrictive perspective, for guns AND alcohol. I believe that gun control is also a state and local issue, not a federal one (the state militias should be regulated BY the states). Unfortunately for gun proponents (the majority of which were not even from Chicago and D.C.), they supported (and in fact guaranteed) federalizing such gun regulations in the future by virtue of supporting the McDonald and Heller decisions. By castrating state and local governments on this issue, they made it certain that the increasing demand for gun control (as misguided as it may be) will be carried out at the federal level rather than the local level. Their hypocrisy on this issue is what will lead to their own defeat in this regard.

    I am absolutely willing to admit my hypocrisy on this issue because I was directly affected by the federal intervention in McDonald v. Chicago, which is why I was pleased by the decision on one level. However, I was also dismayed by the decision, and stated so immediately after the ruling occurred, because of it's effects. Sadly, we do not live in a world where people are content to allow others to decide for themselves, no matter how little they are affected by the decisions of others. If constituents in a particular locality wants to ban guns or alcohol outright, that should be their right. They should not be subjected to nanny-state, big government interference on these matters because the money driving such interference is not local money, but instead it is national money procured by some busybody assholes who are not content to allow others to have freedom.

    So while I think alcohol is a good basis for a comparison if one wishes to oppose rulings such as Heller and McDonald based on the way they undermine state and local governance rights (rather than based on opposition to guns), I think it is a terrible comparison when one is speaking from a federal perspective. Not only are there more current regulations on alcohol when viewed completely (at every level of government), there is far more freedom to regulate alcohol than there is freedom to regulate firearms at the local level as a result of those rulings.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #46
    Sit Nomine Digna
    Carjosse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,208

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    What purpose does consumptive alcohol serve?
    Besides the one class of wine for the antioxidants, why does anyone need to drink alcohol?

    Long Island school bus driver crashes into house, charged with DWI - U.S. News
    Well mainly because it's fun, alcohol especially wine has a taste people want and a will to get. Even if you made it illegal it's easy to make your own, you can't make your own guns. There is no way to control alcohol really if someone wants it they can get and probably very easy to. It's also good for the economy and tax revenue.

  7. #47
    Student Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    150

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Interesting....so if that's the case then how is registering all firearms and banning 30 round magazines going to stop gun violence?
    I like how you completely missed the point of that post. Allow me to spell it out for you.

    There are laws banning possession of marijuana. People smoke marijuana. A lot.
    There are laws in Oklahoma banning sodomy. We still have gay people and, of course, straight folks who do that.
    There are laws suggested to curb gun violence. People still commit crimes with guns.

    I'm tempted to insult you, but I'm having a bad day and would overdo it.

  8. #48
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,697

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    I like how you completely missed the point of that post. Allow me to spell it out for you.

    There are laws banning possession of marijuana. People smoke marijuana. A lot.
    There are laws in Oklahoma banning sodomy. We still have gay people and, of course, straight folks who do that.
    There are laws suggested to curb gun violence. People still commit crimes with guns.

    I'm tempted to insult you, but I'm having a bad day and would overdo it.
    I think I got the point just fine....the people pushing for gun control are not the least bit interested in preventing firearms violence. Their goal, rather obviously, is to prohibit or otherwise restrict law abiding citizens from exercising one of their fundamental rights.

  9. #49
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Very good and rational suggestion. Hats off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Although I'm not a fan of alcoholism, unlike other controversial products the primary victim is the person who chooses to ingest alcohol. However I would not be opposed to breathalyzers installed on commercial vehicles as well as cars operated by drivers with a recent history of drunk driving with use required at start up. Due to the potential for malfunction in an emergency, I'd say all vehicles should still operate in all cases but any over the limit readings automatically send alerts to the vehicles owners as well as law enforcement and the vehicle's location is tracked so the whoever needs to know may verify it was a false reading or an accurate reading leading to the intoxicated operator arrested and prosecuted if it was driven.

    I'm also okay with discounted health, auto and life insurance premiums for those of us who do not engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices on a wide range of categories including excessive alcohol consumption. We can verify it at least to some extent by having a no cost drivers license special "no-alcohol" photo background color. This is already done for younger drivers in my state where those under 21 have a yellow background on the DL photo but for those 21 and over the background is light blue. It doesn't cost anybody any fees. It just alerts bars, restaurants and stores that the potential buyer of an alcoholic beverage was under the legal age at the time the license was issued and to check the date of birth to make sure he/she is now legal. This could be offered at no cost to everybody upon request regardless of age, then the insurance companies can offer a discount everyone with a yellow background. The only hassle would be bars, restaurants and stores would have to start carding everyone and not sell adult beverages to anybody with a yellow DL even if they're 50. Its not 100% full-proof but what is?

  10. #50
    Student Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    150

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    I think I got the point just fine....the people pushing for gun control are not the least bit interested in preventing firearms violence. Their goal, rather obviously, is to prohibit or otherwise restrict law abiding citizens from exercising one of their fundamental rights.
    Would you like to borrow my spare tin foil hat?

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •