How to tackle the drink problem

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 05:56PM

quietriot wrote: »

The vast majority of the drinking population "binge" drink. It's pretty clear they need to be taught how to behave themselves.

Sure you don't

Rounds are known to make people drink faster and drink more. Lost the argument? No, everything I've said makes perfect sense. You've retaliated with absolute nonsense, making sensationalist statements comparing drunks to HIV patients and bringing up ridiculous "what ifs" such as a perfectly sober person attacking a drunk without provocation.

I encounter your type of drinker almost every time I go out, who can almost never accept "no" for an answer when they try to get me to do rounds with them or do shots. You guys can get quite insulting over it too...it's bizarre. I'm just glad you left it at a sarcastic "I'm sure you're loads of craic" when dealing with that person earlier.

Party on Ken, party on.

All those little things would have to check for it a boolean value for "record". Those checking it wouldn't need the background information, just like when you go to do finance on a car or similar. The dealership hasn't a clue why your credit is denied, but it's not for them to deal with. Similarly, you'd be well aware why you were banned from drinking so if you were caught trying to buy with a record, the shopkeeper wouldn't have to explain it to you, nor require the information to.

We weren't talking about "sporting events". We were talking about someone getting injured playing football.

Those sporting "events" would have teams that pay their own medical costs. Saying that a premiership footballer is going to end up in hospital under public care isn't very realistic, in fitting with the rest of the irrational sensationalist hyperbole you've spouted so far.

Thankfully I didn't suggest it could be implemented for €50k, I said a DBA could be hired for €50k.

Long term, such a system would be dramatically less expensive than the one we.

Im going to cut over the childish personal jibes and try and get to what youre babbling about.

They have to check for a record. How is a record gotten? you have purposefully sited credit systems, a very very expensive processes that involves millions per year.

You could only be banned from drinking by a court (unlikely as i believe there could be a constitutional challenge), doctors and nurses cannot on the night fully establish how drink was a factor in why they presented at A&E, do you accept that?

quietriot · 25-01-2012 05:58PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Thank you for being honest in your support of authoritarian social laws. I can happily agree to disagree strongly and not argue over financial "issues" which some people tend to muddy their views with to hide such a disliked opinion.

If more people just said what they mean it would save a lot of pointless arguing.

I merely recognise the problem with alcohol and the risks/costs associated with it. I'm not totally authoritarian for the sake of being authoritarian. I'd gladly support marijuana being legalised and freely manufactured and distributed here for a number of reasons while on the flip side I'd gladly support the use of alcohol being clamped down on due to the costs (socially and financially) that I see associated with it.

I don't mean stamped out now, but I think that good drinkers deserve to be rewarded and bad drinkers deserve to be punished. Yeah, such a licensing system would have a cost, but it would have great benefits like having the trouble makers removed from bars since they can't drink anymore, the cost of running a bar dropping and the associated cost of drink perhaps falling etc. It'd mean the government would have more money which they could invest in good, social initiatives and etc etc.

Nothingbetter2d · 25-01-2012 05:59PM

to fix the drinking problem... open the pub 24/7......... after the initial binging novelty wears off people will go out at different times.

Banning alcohol sales in supermarkets wont stop alcoholics from drinking... just like banning marijuana didnt stop people smoking it or banning heroin didnt stop people banging up.

All it will do is promote an illegal alcohol smuggling market and make criminals even richer and the public coffers even poorer due to increased free legal aid and policing budgets to deal with illegal drink dealers.

a possible solution to easing the problem of alcohol abuse is to lower the actual alcohol content in beers, alcopops, spirits and wines

quietriot · 25-01-2012 06:03PM

sensibleken wrote: »

You could only be banned from drinking by a court (unlikely as i believe there could be a constitutional challenge), doctors and nurses cannot on the night fully establish how drink was a factor in why they presented at A&E, do you accept that?

Yes, which is why I suggested that the implementation be different with regards to those who end up in hospital, vs those who end up in a garda station.

You'd be looking at something whereby a "hold" is placed on the license until it's resolved through the Gardai or even a court. Sure, the odd totally innocent person might end up not being able to drink for a short while, but it'd take the bad drinkers out of our bars and off our streets. It'd prevent kids from getting booze and going into fields and either hurting themselves, knocking other kids up or damaging the local public property. It would overall save money for relatively little hassle and good drinkers would end up being rewarded.

One thing is certain - the current system is not working.

ShooterSF · 25-01-2012 06:05PM

quietriot wrote: »

Er, you could also say that you're unlikely to be hospitalized by a PS3, so you shouldn't have to pay tax on it.

Everything is taxed, whether you like it or not. You take the tax off something, or if the tax take from something decreases, the difference has to be taken from somewhere else. While you appease one set of people by taking the tax off something, you'd enrage a much larger set by imposing a charge/tax on something else.

Its about equality not appeasement, couldn't give a crap who's upset. I meant that recreational drugs should have the same vat levied as any vice. If taxes need to go up as a result spread them evenly, fairly, equally.

I think that anything that requires you signing a waiver of being able to sue for damages shouldn't be covered by public health care as it's clearly inherently dangerous. Whether football is covered in that, I don't know, I don't play football.

So yeah, anything that you sign your rights away to take part in, and drugs, shouldn't be covered under the public health system. I don't see why you should get to take what are deemed to be extreme risks and the taxpayer cover the costs, when the taxpayer gets no benefit from your risk/leisure.

Why a waiver? I used to play football on a green with a group of friends. I knew it had dangers associated with it. If I got hurt playing it is no different to getting hurt while drunk other than the opinion one has on the value of exercise vs drug use. Something I'm strongly against imposing one's views on others (which deep down I feel is where most people are actually arguing from, we're just layering any handy facts on top of the this root view imo) .

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 06:10PM

quietriot wrote: »

Yes, which is why I suggested that the implementation be different with regards to those who end up in hospital, vs those who end up in a garda station.

You'd be looking at something whereby a "hold" is placed on the license until it's resolved through the Gardai or even a court. Sure, the odd totally innocent person might end up not being able to drink for a short while, but it'd take the bad drinkers out of our bars and off our streets. It'd prevent kids from getting booze and going into fields and either hurting themselves, knocking other kids up or damaging the local public property. It would overall save money for relatively little hassle and good drinkers would end up being rewarded.

One thing is certain - the current system is not working.

So basically guilty until proven innocent. and you say this will only impact people who are bad drinkers, and you want to tie up the courts and garda time with this nonsense too.

and you think this will be cheaper?

christ

not to mention discouraging people seeking medical attention that truely need it. honestly, if it was so bonkers that nobody would take it seriously id say it was just plain vile

ShooterSF · 25-01-2012 06:13PM

quietriot wrote: »

One thing is certain - the current system is not working.

Authoritarian laws in not curbing people's actions shocker. Optimal solution - apply more authoritarian laws.

quietriot · 25-01-2012 06:18PM

sensibleken wrote: »

So basically guilty until proven innocent. and you say this will only impact people who are bad drinkers, and you want to tie up the courts and garda time with this nonsense too.

and you think this will be cheaper?

christ

not to mention discouraging people seeking medical attention that truely need it. honestly, if it was so bonkers that nobody would take it seriously id say it was just plain vile

It would most certainly be cheaper.

Good job moaning for the past few hours while never offering alternatives or anything constructive, very liberal and "left wing", well done. Richard Boyd-Barrett would be proud.

ScumLord · 25-01-2012 06:18PM

Drink isn't the problem it's only a symptom.

figarofigaro · 25-01-2012 06:20PM

The government wouldn't go for that. They don't want people to stop drinking. They don't even want people to drink less. They just want people to pay more.

quietriot · 25-01-2012 06:22PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Authoritarian laws in not curbing people's actions shocker. Optimal solution - apply more authoritarian laws.

Oh it's authoritarian here, is it?

You poor little liberal. Head over to North Korea or Singapore for a while and come back and say that the government is authoritarian.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 06:22PM

quietriot wrote: »

It would most certainly be cheaper.

Good job moaning for the past few hours while never offering alternatives or anything constructive, very liberal and "left wing", well done. Richard Boyd-Barrett would be proud.

Seriously, throwing personal jibes when you have been proved wrong is pathetic.

How about this. How about actually enforcing the laws that are there? Its illegal to serve an intoxicated person. Yet if some barmen have no problem skipping that law you expect them to take the one that is going to give them less money and likely to give them an aggressive punter.

quietriot · 25-01-2012 06:28PM

sensibleken wrote: »

Seriously, throwing personal jibes when you have been proved wrong is pathetic.

How about this. How about actually enforcing the laws that are there? Its illegal to serve an intoxicated person. Yet if some barmen have no problem skipping that law you expect them to take the one that is going to give them less money and likely to give them an aggressive punter.

You've proven nothing. You've moaned a lot, thrown out a lot of ridiculous "what ifs!?!" and some more left-wing, sensationalist crap, while defending something that the country clearly has a huge issue with, in the interest of preserving your own relationship with it.

There's nothing personal in that post, there was in what my estimation of you as a drinking partner was personal but whatever, a lot of people here fit into that category.

With regards to current laws, why don't we simply enforce a law that bans people from being drunk in public places? Stick mandatory fines on it and have the gardai patrol the streets at night issuing them to anyone they determine to be intoxicated.

Would that work for you?

Eric Cartman · 25-01-2012 06:28PM

the only drink problem Ireland has is government trying to interfere and destroy free trade

ShooterSF · 25-01-2012 06:29PM

quietriot wrote: »

Oh it's authoritarian here, is it?

You poor little liberal. Head over to North Korea or Singapore for a while and come back and say that the government is authoritarian.

What's your point? Be happy that you live in a country that's more liberal than some others? Well woop de fukin do. Why don't you go live in them? They seem to align closer to your beliefs.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 06:31PM

quietriot wrote: »

You've proven nothing. You've moaned a lot, thrown out a lot of ridiculous "what ifs!?!" and some more left-wing, sensationalist crap, while defending something that the country clearly has a huge issue with, in the interest of preserving your own relationship with it.

There's nothing personal in that post, there was in what my estimation of you as a drinking partner was personal but whatever, a lot of people here fit into that category.

With regards to current laws, why don't we simply enforce a law that bans people from being drunk in public places? Stick mandatory fines on it and have the gardai patrol the streets at night issuing them to anyone they determine to be intoxicated.

Would that work for you?

youve shown repeatedly that when you are proved wrong you throw a hissy fit. Frankly im done with arguing with a child

quietriot · 25-01-2012 06:35PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

What's your point? Be happy that you live in a country that's more liberal than some others? Well woop de fukin do. Why don't you go live in them? They seem to align closer to your beliefs.

No I just laugh when Irish people claim we have it tough here. People calling the Irish state "authoritarian" or "nanny state" need only to look a brief distance left or right to see real authoritarianism in action.

RichieC · 25-01-2012 06:38PM

quietriot wrote: »

No I just laugh when Irish people claim we have it tough here. People calling the Irish state "authoritarian" or "nanny state" need only to look a brief distance left or right to see real authoritarianism in action.

not for long with the likes of you around..

quietriot · 25-01-2012 06:38PM

sensibleken wrote: »

youve shown repeatedly that when you are proved wrong you throw a hissy fit. Frankly im done with arguing with a child

I've yet to be proven wrong.

That's right Ken, throw out a personal insult when you've absolutely nothing to say. It's fairly clear you're just getting upset because there was a suggestion that would affect you being able to booze it up with your rounds, shot and "craic". Not a single constructive alternative offered, not one. You just moaned throughout the thread and then got personal.

It's grand, nothing I'm not used to from dealing with Labour supporters I will say, however I would expect better in an online discussion on something that isn't very topical or that one doesn't tend to hold close to heart.

quietriot · 25-01-2012 06:39PM

RichieC wrote: »

not for long with the likes of you around..

So, that is to say, I'd be likely to get elected into power here?

Good stuff, might consider it for the next round

_ __ _ · 25-01-2012 06:48PM

quietriot wrote: »

No, alcohol is known to alter perception and judgement. Those same actions would not have been carried out sober, so are at the very least 50% due to the alcohol.

There's no question that they're responsible, but it's without question that it probably wouldn't have happened if they weren't drunk.

The point i'm making is that drinking and irresponsible behaviour may be corelated, but they are seperated by a choice. This choice imo should make the two completely seperate from a legal responsibility point of view, which means responsible drinkers should not be in any way punished for the actions of those who act irresponsibly whilst drunk.

When you seperate choice and legal responsibility you create a situation where you can statistically correlate lots of things with lots of things to victimise almost whoever you like. I don't think this is fair and i don't think government should have this power.

It's for the benefit of everyone.

If we had more money to spend, less services would be being cut back now. More garda stations would remain open, more gardai would be being recruited, etc. The more money we can save on stupid things like retard drunks causing messes, the more money we can allocate to things we actually need.

Next time you see someone sitting in on a trolley in a corridor in a hospital, just remember that a few less drunks coming into A&E or wasting Garda time could have paid for a bed for that person.

There's lot of ways money could be saved/more money could be raised to help with healthcare costs. You could victimise almost anyone or anything under this logic. Where the money should be cut in order to fund healthcare would become a matter of personal preference- It would be very hard to specify under any sort of simple, objective system of rules.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 07:10PM

quietriot wrote: »

I've yet to be proven wrong.

That's right Ken, throw out a personal insult when you've absolutely nothing to say. It's fairly clear you're just getting upset because there was a suggestion that would affect you being able to booze it up with your rounds, shot and "craic". Not a single constructive alternative offered, not one. You just moaned throughout the thread and then got personal.

It's grand, nothing I'm not used to from dealing with Labour supporters I will say, however I would expect better in an online discussion on something that isn't very topical or that one doesn't tend to hold close to heart.

lol. have a drink you sound like you need it

AngryBollix · 25-01-2012 07:20PM

Perhaps stopping drinking would be a start

bleg · 25-01-2012 07:31PM

old hippy wrote: »

Sick people often can't do that, though.

Agreed. If alcoholics come to seek help then there should be support services available. The recipients of support services from the state should be obliged to take Antabuse (disulfuram).

quietriot · 25-01-2012 07:31PM

sensibleken wrote: »

lol. have a drink you sound like you need it

Sorry Ken, some of us don't find the solutions to our problems at the bottom of a pint.

ShooterSF · 25-01-2012 07:36PM

quietriot wrote: »

No I just laugh when Irish people claim we have it tough here. People calling the Irish state "authoritarian" or "nanny state" need only to look a brief distance left or right to see real authoritarianism in action.

And I didn't call the state a nanny state or authoritarian and if I had it would not mean that I imply that they are the most authoritarian. That my friend is a strawman. What I did say was that what you are and others are suggesting is introducing authoritarian laws to change attitudes of people who don't share the same ones as yourself and that I disagree with such sentiment.
The point that things could be much worse does not take away from an argument that we should aim to be better than we are, which from a social liberal pov, there is room to improve.
I've offered ideas to balance the financial and other responsibilities of people's life choices but it doesnt seem good enough for one reason or another.