• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Restricting consumption of alcohol.

BretJ

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Alcohol related violence and deaths far exceed that of firearms and causes exponentially more in the way of tragedy and health costs. Would it be reasonable to assume that by applying the same methods proposed for reducing gun violence to alcohol, we could get more bang for the buck? Would the majority of alcohol consumers be willing to modify their consumption in order to reduce alcohol related violence/deaths caused by a fraction of 1% of all consumers? Even if we save one life...
 
BretJ said:
Alcohol related violence and deaths far exceed that of firearms and causes exponentially more in the way of tragedy and health costs. Would it be reasonable to assume that by applying the same methods proposed for reducing gun violence to alcohol, we could get more bang for the buck? Would the majority of alcohol consumers be willing to modify their consumption in order to reduce alcohol related violence/deaths caused by a fraction of 1% of all consumers? Even if we save one life...
Click to expand...

OH Come-on! Do I have to copy and paste my response to your other post about eliminating discounts for bulk purchases from there to here? (I actually read this one BTW) :lol:

Captain Adverse said:
(First of all, I don't drink alcohol. It tastes awful while the effects and after-effects aren't worth the bother in my experience).

What constitutes "bulk sales?" More than one bottle of any liquor? Anything over a 40 oz. or six pack of beer?

Look, trying to over-regulate a vice typically causes more problems than it solves.

I can imagine all the methods people would use to get around this type of law. What? Having each member of a frat go in and make a separate purchase? Make legal levels of purchases in advance over time to still have that party? Adults standing outside liquor stores and asking other adults to go in and buy for them? Sheesh.

Will this lead to new laws to punish violators? Is this another step toward a War on Alcohol situation?

Too many questions for it to work here in the USA. I'd rather punish people for actually committing a crime, rather than set up a prevention system (never works does it?) which will end up punishing people because a once legal act that might lead to some harm now becomes illegal itself.
Click to expand...

Now, I believe I got it right this time, ya think? ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't buy that a ban would actually significantly reduce alcohol consumption as a whole. It will reduce it to some extent, so like you said it would save "some lives," but at the same time it would take some. All prohibition will do is shift alcohol to the black market, eventually resulting in gang wars and perhaps a "war on alcohol," similar to the *utterly* failed WOD. The risks outweigh the benefits. The world isn't a good one, sadly.
 
BretJ said:
Would the majority of alcohol consumers be willing to modify their consumption in order to reduce alcohol related violence/deaths caused by a fraction of 1% of all consumers? .
Click to expand...

Seeing as the only changes that come over me when I consume alcohol are that I am a bit more energetic in speech and hand gesture, I'm not sure what modifying my consumption will accomplish.

Nevermind that the War on Drugs and Prohibition were both massive failures that caused way more harm than they prevented, so I'm not sure what having another government-lead go at booze is going to accomplish.
 
Actually, my view is that 99.999% of alcohol consumers do not need to modify there rights based on the actions of a fraction of 1%. Yet there are those that would ask firearms owners to modify their rights and freedoms in order to "save lives" and "prevent tragedy" to an exponentially lesser extent. All based on the criminal actions of a fraction of 1% of all gun owners...go figure.

Seems it's always easier to screw with someone else's rights and freedoms rather than your own.
 
Mr Person said:
Seeing as the only changes that come over me when I consume alcohol are that I am a bit more energetic in speech and hand gesture, I'm not sure what modifying my consumption will accomplish.

Nevermind that the War on Drugs and Prohibition were both massive failures that caused way more harm than they prevented, so I'm not sure what having another government-lead go at booze is going to accomplish.
Click to expand...

we also need to reduce the legal drinking age
 
BretJ said:
Alcohol related violence and deaths far exceed that of firearms and causes exponentially more in the way of tragedy and health costs. Would it be reasonable to assume that by applying the same methods proposed for reducing gun violence to alcohol, we could get more bang for the buck? Would the majority of alcohol consumers be willing to modify their consumption in order to reduce alcohol related violence/deaths caused by a fraction of 1% of all consumers? Even if we save one life...
Click to expand...

very transparent
 
BretJ said:
Alcohol related violence and deaths far exceed that of firearms and causes exponentially more in the way of tragedy and health costs. Would it be reasonable to assume that by applying the same methods proposed for reducing gun violence to alcohol, we could get more bang for the buck? Would the majority of alcohol consumers be willing to modify their consumption in order to reduce alcohol related violence/deaths caused by a fraction of 1% of all consumers? Even if we save one life...
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t be reasonable to apply the same methods to alcohol and are applied to firearms because they’re entirely different things. It is reasonable to apply different methods to alcohol to seek to minimise the negative impacts and we do. There are age limits, times and places where drinking and/or intoxication are prohibited, licenced sales with restrictions and specific responsibilities, “sin taxes” to artificially inflate prices and social policy to discourage misuse and excessive drinking. If anything, restrictions and limitations on alcohol are more socially acceptable than ones on firearms.
 
BretJ said:
Alcohol related violence and deaths far exceed that of firearms and causes exponentially more in the way of tragedy and health costs. Would it be reasonable to assume that by applying the same methods proposed for reducing gun violence to alcohol, we could get more bang for the buck? Would the majority of alcohol consumers be willing to modify their consumption in order to reduce alcohol related violence/deaths caused by a fraction of 1% of all consumers? Even if we save one life...
Click to expand...

Check the statistics for the Prohibition era and you'll have your answer. You'll note that prohibition was repealed. ;)
 
HonestJoe said:
It wouldn’t be reasonable to apply the same methods to alcohol and are applied to firearms because they’re entirely different things. It is reasonable to apply different methods to alcohol to seek to minimise the negative impacts and we do. There are age limits, times and places where drinking and/or intoxication are prohibited, licenced sales with restrictions and specific responsibilities, “sin taxes” to artificially inflate prices and social policy to discourage misuse and excessive drinking. If anything, restrictions and limitations on alcohol are more socially acceptable than ones on firearms.
Click to expand...

Most of those restrictions are also applied to firearms as well. Yet the cost in lives due to alcohol is still acceptable. Why the difference with firearms?
 
BretJ said:
Alcohol related violence and deaths far exceed that of firearms and causes exponentially more in the way of tragedy and health costs. Would it be reasonable to assume that by applying the same methods proposed for reducing gun violence to alcohol, we could get more bang for the buck? Would the majority of alcohol consumers be willing to modify their consumption in order to reduce alcohol related violence/deaths caused by a fraction of 1% of all consumers? Even if we save one life...
Click to expand...

No. They can't or won't modify their consumption. I was a cop for 30 years and almost all of our homicides were alcohol related and an even higher percentage of domestic violence cases with actual physical violence had alcohol involved. Most assaults also involved alcohol as did most of the violent rapes. Most of our suicides involved alcohol.

No, alcohol is just so much fun no one should restrict the consumption.
 
I think the police should increase patrols, especially in high crime areas to keep all violence to a mimimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom