nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should alcohol be banned based on available evidence?

jasonmcco

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

I think it should be up for discussion in the light of the growing calls for marijauna to be legalised.

In addition to this if you think it should be legal to sell alcohol do you think it should be legal to sell marijauna?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

mathepac wrote: »

21 for both, ID produced for each order and for entry to licensed premises as in some parts of the US.

Oh stop, raising the drinking age to 21 would do nothing but increase the underage drinking figures for the country and asking everyone for ID all the time is just painful nonsense, slowing down service, slowing down getting into places, no thanks.

The fact people are even talking about it being banned it really pointless as thankfully it will never ever happen.

mathepac

Deleted User wrote: »

Stoners being notoriously energetic and fighty.

If you say so, I'll take your word.

mathepac

Jaxx Clean Bill wrote: »

Oh stop, raising the drinking age to 21 would do nothing but increase the underage drinking figures for the country and asking everyone for ID all the time is just painful nonsense, slowing down service, slowing down getting into places, no thanks. ...

Not based on my experiences in a number of states in the US. People become accustomed to the initial minor inconvenience and quickly adapt.

What are the underage drinking figures for this country BTW?

Anyone

jasonmcco wrote: »

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

I think it should be up for discussion in the light of the growing calls for marijauna to be legalised.

In addition to this if you think it should be legal to sell alcohol do you think it should be legal to sell marijauna?

That "evidence" is pretty one sided. It doesnt mention the income it generates for the gov, the number of people employed by its production/sale etc.
It also fails to point out that a large proportion of people would still be virgins without it, and an even larger proportion would never have been conceived without it!

bobs knobs

mathepac wrote: »

I have no idea what absynth is. Maybe you mean absinthe and I say maybe you should use more water and the appropriate stirring device before further consumption.

Most of the myths surrounding absinthe consumption are just that, myths - or is that meths?

auto correct has a lot to answer for alright. how dare you question my sobriety. you don't like valid points do you?

[Deleted User]

mathepac wrote: »

Not based on my experiences in a number of states in the US. People become accustomed to the initial minor inconvenience and quickly adapt.

What are the underage drinking figures for this country BTW?

I'd rather do without the minor inconvenience in the first place because its pointless nanny state carry on.

I don't know the figures but you can be sure they will rocket as people in the 18-21 age group will want to drink and rightly so.

positron

I am all for individual choice etc, but as a society we should prioritise if we want to spend our money supporting someone drinking and issues raising from it, or providing scholarship for a bright but poor student so that he/she can go on and have a fair crack at life and perhaps make it better for everyone.

How much of our A&E crowding and general HSE spending is due to alcohol related issues or direct alcohol abuse? Tax alcohol direct and indirectly until every single penny we spend on supporting people who drink alcohol comes from alcohol - that might help as a starting point.

ejmaztec

bobs knobs wrote: »

so 21 is grand for a bottle of absynth? i say learn to crawl before you can walk.

After a bottle of that, you probably might not manage to crawl.

positron

positron wrote: »

How much of our A&E crowding and general HSE spending is due to alcohol related issues or direct alcohol abuse? Tax alcohol direct and indirectly until every single penny we spend on supporting people who drink alcohol comes from alcohol - that might help as a starting point.

* Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007 - that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland

* Treating alcohol-related injuries and diseases cost the healthcare system an estimated €1.2 billion - around 8.5% of the total annual healthcare budget
Each night, 2,000 hospital beds are occupied for alcohol-related reasons

* 10% of all general in-patient hospital costs, 7% of GP costs and up to 30% of emergency department costs are alcohol-related

* An estimated €1.2 billion of tax payers’ money is spent on dealing with alcohol-related crime including violence and vandalism

* An estimated €527 million is lost on alcohol-related absenteeism and accidents in the work place

* Beyond the immeasurable human costs, each fatal car collision is estimated to cost the state €3 million. In 2007, alcohol-related road collisions cost an estimated €526 million

* A 30% reduction in alcohol-related harm would save taxpayers an estimated €1 billion a year, according to the Chief Medical Officer of Ireland

Un-fecking-believable. Has anyone wondered why this issue doesn't get enough air-time on the media? In this day and age, those figures are downright disgusting.

keithclancy

positron wrote: »

* Alcohol-related problems cost Ireland an estimated €3.7 billion in 2007 - that’s a cost of €3,318 on each person paying income tax in Ireland

* Treating alcohol-related injuries and diseases cost the healthcare system an estimated €1.2 billion - around 8.5% of the total annual healthcare budget
Each night, 2,000 hospital beds are occupied for alcohol-related reasons

* 10% of all general in-patient hospital costs, 7% of GP costs and up to 30% of emergency department costs are alcohol-related

* An estimated €1.2 billion of tax payers’ money is spent on dealing with alcohol-related crime including violence and vandalism

* An estimated €527 million is lost on alcohol-related absenteeism and accidents in the work place

* Beyond the immeasurable human costs, each fatal car collision is estimated to cost the state €3 million. In 2007, alcohol-related road collisions cost an estimated €526 million

* A 30% reduction in alcohol-related harm would save taxpayers an estimated €1 billion a year, according to the Chief Medical Officer of Ireland

Un-fecking-believable. Has anyone wondered why this issue doesn't get enough air-time on the media? In this day and age, those figures are downright disgusting.

Drink driving was all the rage back in the day (15 years ago) now its seen as a disgusting taboo with shame attached to it.

I'd say thats a big change.

positron

^^^ The above says 2007. Five years ago, not 15. So, I guess that's still very relevant.

Knasher

I don't think alcohol should be banned. As people have already said, the only group it helps are the criminals. What I would like to see is everyone needing some sort of card in order to buy alcohol, and if they are problem drunks they could be excluded from buying alcohol in the future for a time. That might cut down on the worst parts of the antisocial behavior caused by alcohol, without turning half the country into criminals and providing a lucrative new market for smugglers.

I would like to see marijuana legalized. Again the main beneficiaries of the ban are the criminals making money off it. I've also long been of the opinion that the ban promotes harder drug usage, by making the users criminals you will have people reasoning that "in for a penny, in for a pound", as well as probably introducing them to the means of getting harder drugs.

TeddyTedson

I wish it was banned. It's so annoying that it's everywhere in this country. It gets boring. I wish I could get my friends doing other things than drinking every weekend.

keithclancy

positron wrote: »

^^^ The above says 2007. Five years ago, not 15. So, I guess that's still very relevant.

It was the bit where you said:

Un-fecking-believable. Has anyone wondered why this issue doesn't get enough air-time on the media? In this day and age, those figures are downright disgusting.

RSA Campaigns for drink driving got a shed load of airtime/media coverage and have done over the years.

Duggy747

GOOD GRIEF NOO!!

*hugs slab of beer*

Anyways, you ban something then the ones who clean up are the cwiminals and people start clogging up the courts even more.

mathepac

Knasher wrote: »

I don't think alcohol should be banned. As people have already said, the only group it helps are the criminals. ...

I haven't said that. You might want to point out how many others have.

Banning alcohol would have an immediate benefit for me. I wouldn't have to pay for drunks clogging up emergency services and staff in hospitals at week-ends, step through pools of urine and vomit and could walk the streets safely after closing time at night, without running the risk of being accosted or assaulted by drunks.

Knasher wrote: »

... That might cut down on the worst parts of the antisocial behavior caused by alcohol, ....

If you see that "antisocial behaviour" is the worst effect that alcohol has on our society then I'm afraid you must have your eyes and ears firmly shut to reality.

Alcohol causes death and injury on an unprecedented scale in this country and kills more people than all other drugs, legal and illegal, combined.

The cost in monetary terms and in health and lives is staggering.

Knasher wrote: »

... I've also long been of the opinion that the ban promotes harder drug usage, by making the users criminals you will have people reasoning that "in for a penny, in for a pound", as well as probably introducing them to the means of getting harder drugs.

That may be your opinion and you're entitled to hold it, but I'm afraid there is nothing to back it up.

zenno

If alcohol was banned then people would just make their own in their home. Time for a pint of home-brew me thinks.

Legalize marijuana though.

mathepac

keithclancy wrote: »

... RSA Campaigns for drink driving got a shed load of airtime/media coverage and have done over the years.

Any RSA campaigns I have seen were against drink-driving, not for it.

keithclancy

mathepac wrote: »

Any RSA campaigns I have seen were against drink-driving, not for it.

Shonkiest post ever.

[Deleted User]

mathepac wrote: »

I haven't said that. You might want to point out how many others have.

Banning alcohol would have an immediate benefit for me. I wouldn't have to pay for drunks clogging up emergency services and staff in hospitals at week-ends, step through pools of urine and vomit and could walk the streets safely after closing time at night, without running the risk of being accosted or assaulted by drunks.

Instead you would be paying the dole money for the 1000's of bar workers, brewery workers, delivery drivers etc etc who would be out of work due to drink no longer being served along with the increased presence of the illegal drink trade which will make streets more unsafe with crime leves increasing massively due to the increase in illegal drink supplying gangs etc.

Drink related assaults on innocent people are very small, yes they happen but so do non-drink related ones. The vast majority of drink related assaults, fights etc are not one sided and both parties involved usually contribute.

Stepping over a bit of p*ss or vomit every now and again is hardly the end of the world, seeing a bit of vomit usually brings a laugh out of us and few comments like "he has seen better days" etc.

Agricola

Alcohol isnt the problem, its our society's juvenile attitude to it. There are countless countries where this isnt even a debate. Why is it a debate here?

Change the attitudes to drink. Instill kids with a new perspective on it. Change the "Its great to be a crazy Irish drunk, shure Im great craic so i am" idea.

Furious_George

The answer isn't banning alcohol, its taking a zero tolerance approach to policing drunken behaviour.

On the spot fines for antisocial behaviour....including loud shouting/singing etc after a certain hour (you can do that in the pubs and clubs), if you are out and about too drunk to look after yourself a night in the cells. Tougher penalties for repeat offenders perhaps including city centre bans after a certain hour might help.

Perhaps imposing fines for establishments seen to be serving alcohol to people who are too drunk. As much as I hate to say it perhaps increase the price of alcohol also. It is a prohibiting factor for me....I love my pints but don't do it as regularly due to the cost which probably saves my health somewhat and I don't like to drink to where I lose control anymore.

The main thing would be to commit the resources to implement this change and to be consistent with it so that the public realise that if their drinking becomes a problem for others. I may sound like a kill joy and I have to admit when I was younger I drank copious amounts of alcohol and was engaged in antisocial behaviour when drunk such as fighting, probably urinating in the street, being a general pest. If I was sure that even by being too drunk and noisy in the street there was a high probability of getting an on the spot fine (or worse) I think I might have been better behaved.

Also legalise it, I don't smoke weed any more (except on a trip to amsterdam this year) as I wouldnt come in contact with anyone who sells it and I dont like to break the law. All it does is mellow you out, I have never met anyone or heard of anyone who became aggressive on weed alone. Of course you will have stoners but we have them anyway. All legalising it will do is allow people who would like to smoke a joint once in a while to do it legally, instead of perhaps having a few drinks. These people will not be going into work stoned, no more than they are going in drunk at the minute. Bring it in like they are in provinces in the Netherlands, where you have to be a resident to buy it, tax the sh1t out of it, allow people to grow one plant. I can see no downside.

tldr; zero tolerance approach to drunken antisocial behaviour, increase in price of alcohol, legalise weed.

Knasher

mathepac wrote: »

I haven't said that. You might want to point out how many others have.

You do realize that there are more people sharing their opinions here than just you right? I didn't even quote you so I've no idea where you got the idea I was implying you said that. The people who have expressed this opinion said:

DazMarz wrote: »

There is nothing to gain from making alcohol illegal, except for enterprising criminals who will make an absolute killing in providing cheap, dangerous liquor to the public at large.

and

Yakult wrote: »

Exactly, prohibition does not favor anyone other than the criminals.

and I agree with them.

mathepac wrote: »

That may be your opinion and you're entitled to hold it, but I'm afraid there is nothing to back it up.

Hence why I prefaced that statement by making it clear that it was my opinion. I don't think my hypothesis is that much of a stretch, but if I were aware of data to back it up I wouldn't have declared it as an opinion to start with.

Furious_George

Agricola wrote: »

Alcohol isnt the problem, its our society's juvenile attitude to it. There are countless countries where this isnt even a debate. Why is it a debate here?

Change the attitudes to drink. Instill kids with a new perspective on it. Change the "Its great to be a crazy Irish drunk, shure Im great craic so i am" idea.

I agree with this 100%. How can we go about this though. The drink aware ads are a good first step but they aren't effective. Some sort of campaign is required which targets children as soon as they hit secondary school and not just to throw facts at them and say don't drink until you are 18, remember your pledge and all that ****e. It really has to try and change attitudes towards it so that if someone is really drunk, their peers look down on them and let them know it.

TPD

mathepac wrote: »

I am responding to a poster who thinks being a consenting drinker amongst other consenting drinkers is OK. I am challenging that thinking. Does this pose you some insurmountable intellectual dilemma?

Drunks & stoners must at some stage come into contact with others who are not in their intoxicated state. Is it OK with you if their behaviour when intoxicated effects our lives?

So, in answer to a yes / no question, you choose to insult my intelligence. Noted.

If I am the victim of a crime committed by somebody who is drunk or stoned, then I would want that person prosecuted for the crime they have committed. Nobody is saying it's OK to commit crime if you're intoxicated, which is what you seem to be implying.

mathepac

Jaxx Clean Bill wrote: »

Instead you would be paying the dole money for the 1000's of bar workers, brewery workers, delivery drivers etc etc who would be out of work due to drink no longer being served along with the increased presence of the illegal drink trade which will make streets more unsafe with crime leves increasing massively due to the increase in illegal drink supplying gangs etc.

Drink related assaults on innocent people are very small, yes they happen but so do non-drink related ones. The vast majority of drink related assaults, fights etc are not one sided and both parties involved usually contribute.
...

So is it safe to surmise that you work in a pub / own one / work for Diageo / Tesco etc?

Another alternative might be to levy extra charges on pubs and places / organisations that sell drink in order to pay for the clean-up operations for streets, people and hospital admissions, with the sellers free to pass these price increases on to the drinkers, so the the clean ups, treatment, assaults, accidents due to drink are funded by drinkers. Start at say €15 per pint and work upwards until the problems resolve themselves.

As soon as this reaches a state of balance, legalise whatever the public demands using a similar model.

Jaxx Clean Bill wrote: »

... Stepping over a bit of p*ss or vomit every now and again is hardly the end of the world, seeing a bit of vomit usually brings a laugh out of us and few comments like "he has seen better days" etc.

You may be acclimatised to living that way and see it as part of the price you have to pay for drunks in society, however it doesn't appeal to me.

[Deleted User]

mathepac wrote: »

So is it safe to surmise that you work in a pub / own one / work for Diageo / Tesco etc?

Another alternative might be to levy extra charges on pubs and places / organisations that sell drink in order to pay for the clean-up operations for streets, people and hospital admissions, with the sellers free to pass these price increases on to the drinkers, so the the clean ups, treatment, assaults, accidents due to drink are funded by drinkers. Start at say €15 per pint and work upwards until the problems resolve themselves. As soon as this reaches a state of balance, legalise whatever the public demands using a similar model.

No I have absolutely no connection to the drink trade apart from the fact going out drinking is extremely enjoyable and I do it regularly

Why should I have to pay 15 euro for a pint for someone else who causes trouble, its just nonsense.

I actually want drink prices reduced as they are already too high in this country.

mathepac wrote: »

You may be acclimatised to living that way and see it as part of the price you have to pay for drunks in society, however it doesn't appeal to me.

I just have the attitude that's it happens to us all the odd time and its a non issue. How stepping around a small bit of vomit on the street once in a while has such a big effect on you're life I don't know. I'm not saying its a nice thing to see, but its not something that's going to negatively effect you.

MaxSteele

mathepac wrote: »

So is it safe to surmise that you work in a pub / own one / work for Diageo / Tesco etc?

Another alternative might be to levy extra charges on pubs and places / organisations that sell drink in order to pay for the clean-up operations for streets, people and hospital admissions, with the sellers free to pass these price increases on to the drinkers, so the the clean ups, treatment, assaults, accidents due to drink are funded by drinkers. Start at say €15 per pint and work upwards until the problems resolve themselves.

As soon as this reaches a state of balance, legalise whatever the public demands using a similar model.
You may be acclimatised to living that way and see it as part of the price you have to pay for drunks in society, however it doesn't appeal to me.

You're trolling right ?

Why should I or anyone else pay extortionate prices because of the actions of a few idiots ? Make them pay. Fine them or whatever. Alcohol is already taxed to the gills and far overpriced already.

You sound almost agoraphobic.

If Irish society doesn't "appeal" to you then move abroad. Simple.

Furious_George

mathepac wrote: »

Another alternative might be to levy extra charges on pubs and places / organisations that sell drink in order to pay for the clean-up operations for streets, people and hospital admissions, with the sellers free to pass these price increases on to the drinkers, so the the clean ups, treatment, assaults, accidents due to drink are funded by drinkers.

There is already excise duty on alcohol on top of VAT. The most recent figures I'm finding for the full year is €826m in excise in 2010 on alcohol alone. This is separate from VAT which is higher again. This is down from over €1bn in 2008.

http://taxpolicy.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/11.22-General-Excise-Duties.pdf

http://taxpolicy.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/09.19b.pdf

I cant find the breakdown of VAT receipts and i am not claiming that it fully covers the total cost of the negative effects of drink but I am pointing out that the cleanups treatments assaults accidents are largely funded by the drinkers already.

This does not mean that an increase in the tax would be a bad thing as based on the statistics provided by the OP, it seams the monetary cost of alcohol abuse may be higher than the tax take. Also just because drinkers are paying higher tax on alcohol, it doesnt mean that we cannot tackle the problems associated with alcohol abuse. I think the majority of mature people who consume alcohol would be on board.

httpete

People who are saying drink doesn't cause that much problems are talking complete nonsense. There have been thousands of people killed over the last decade alone due to drink, countless more injured in some way.

I know of a fair few people who have got the sh*t kicked out of them by people hammered on alcohol. Two of them are lucky to be alive, separate incidents, both knocked unconscious and kicked in the head on the ground. I know a couple of people who are dead due to drink driving and two people who died directly from consumption of alcohol.

Alcohol causes an unbelievable amount of problems, it's one of the worst drugs there is, it's just so ingrained into society that the older generation don't realise how hypocritical they are being when they criticise drug-taking, yet they themselves have been imbibing a mild altering substance for decades.

If alcohol didn't exist and was invented tomorrow morning and distributed all over the country there would be national outrage at the effects it has on society.