[Santalum]

Phi for All, on 22 February 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

I don't drink at all and I still consider that to be an affront to civil liberties. Can't we just tax it to cover the costs to the country? I'd like that better than trying to figure out which personal freedoms were "less important" than others. Or taxing everyone for problems caused by an identifiable segment of the population.

Do you think I should be taxed even though I don't drink? Is this an area where my money should be used because it means a "reduction in harm to society overall"?


Really, Oz has no laws already in place for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?! For child abuse?! I'm sure you do. Wouldn't it be easier and more elegant to simply strengthen these existing laws?

If you don't drink then any taxation or curtailing of 'freedom to get drunk' will be of little concern to you.

As with any 'freedom', if the harm it causes to society at large is beyond a certain threshold then that freedom should and must be curtailed........some how. This is the difference between civil society and a lawless society like Somalia.

This post has been edited by Santalum: 23 February 2012 - 06:06 AM

[Phi for All]

Santalum, on 23 February 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

If you don't drink then any taxation or curtailing of 'freedom to get drunk' will be of little concern to you.

That doesn't really answer my question, and isn't really true. There are citizens who pay taxes to subsidize products they never use (subsidies they often don't even know about), or use a disproportionately low amount of. I'm asking if you think this should be such a case, where a subsidy should be attached to the sale of alcohol (and let's say marijuana too, if it's made legal) so that everyone's money can be used to help with a reduction in harm to society overall.

Quote

As with any 'freedom', if the harm it causes to society at large is beyond a certain threshold then that freedom should and must be curtailed........some how. This is the difference between civil society and a lawless society like Somalia.

Again, we aren't lawless, we have laws already in place that should deal with the teen binge drinking. Either the laws aren't being enforced, they have inadequate strength or they're aimed at the wrong people. In this case, I'd say the parents who supply illegal liquor to minors need to suffer more than those parts of society that aren't involved.

[Schrödinger's hat]

I've yet to see an argument against this strategy for reducing the harms associated with a drug, at least for things like alcohol/tobacco/marijuana which can be produced safely by an individual:
Legalize usage, ban sales.
Legalize small scale production for personal use, but have penalties for having more than is required for personal use.
Put restrictions on where the drug can be used and employ marketing towards socially stigmatizing excessive or habitual use.
Heavy penalties for large scale selling/transporting/storing
Testing/penalties for doing anything dangerous to others while impaired

This cuts out any incentive to market the drug, and makes it laborious to acquire (you have to grow/brew it yourself). At the same time, it limits the price that can be charged for it (if you charge too much, people will just grow it themselves), thus taking the bottom out of the black market. It also limits the involvement of people with large amounts of resources making the drug more addictive/stronger.

Testing for social security/welfare etc. looks good on paper, but should be examined thoroughly. If it costs more to do the test than the 'freeloaders' cost society, then what's the point? Also people turn to drugs when they are in a bad spot. Cutting off their money at this time could just make them take longer to recover (further burden on society) or turn to crime to pay for their habit (unlikely in the case of pot).

[Phi for All]

Schrödinger, on 23 February 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

I've yet to see an argument against this strategy for reducing the harms associated with a drug, at least for things like alcohol/tobacco/marijuana which can be produced safely by an individual:
Legalize usage, ban sales.
Legalize small scale production for personal use, but have penalties for having more than is required for personal use.
Put restrictions on where the drug can be used and employ marketing towards socially stigmatizing excessive or habitual use.
Heavy penalties for large scale selling/transporting/storing
Testing/penalties for doing anything dangerous to others while impaired

This cuts out any incentive to market the drug, and makes it laborious to acquire (you have to grow/brew it yourself). At the same time, it limits the price that can be charged for it (if you charge too much, people will just grow it themselves), thus taking the bottom out of the black market. It also limits the involvement of people with large amounts of resources making the drug more addictive/stronger.

I would argue, in the case of marijuana, that you would eventually have people who were better growers than anyone else, and those who couldn't grow it (for whatever reason) would naturally gravitate towards them. Would your system allow one person to grow for 19 others as well, as long as the total didn't exceed the legal maximums for 20 people?

In the case of alcohol, I would argue that, while there are plenty of home brewers and vintners, distilling more aggressive spirits is not something I'd want the average scotch drinker to undertake. Perhaps a person would have to pass a certification test for a license to distill hard liquor, if you still think that's prudent?

There are already laws that restrict public intoxication and harming others while under the influence. Do you feel there would need to be more or stronger laws if pot were legal?

I think the best argument against your plan is that it still restricts what some don't want restricted, so it doesn't do much to end the motivation for a black market. I think there would be a LOT of people who have limited resources to grow/brew it themselves, and that sounds like demand for illegal distribution. I mean, marijuana is treated just like cocaine, crack and methamphetamine in the US, so how much more of a penalty are you going to impose? There are already too many people in prison for pot.

But I do like your emphasis on education against habitual use. If the US could spend the same amount of money on that as they do on prison for drug-only offenses, I think you'd see a dramatic decrease in the amount of unwanted effects from drug use.

Quote

Also people turn to drugs when they are in a bad spot. Cutting off their money at this time could just make them take longer to recover (further burden on society) or turn to crime to pay for their habit (unlikely in the case of pot).

Hard drugs, I agree, have a much greater potential to exceed recreational use. I wouldn't say that pot smokers turn to pot when they're in a bad spot, though. Most people I know who partake do it recreationally, just like the people who have a couple of beers at home in an evening. I don't think those people are harming anyone enough to warrant government intrusion.

[Santalum]

Phi for All, on 23 February 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

That doesn't really answer my question, and isn't really true. There are citizens who pay taxes to subsidize products they never use (subsidies they often don't even know about), or use a disproportionately low amount of. I'm asking if you think this should be such a case, where a subsidy should be attached to the sale of alcohol (and let's say marijuana too, if it's made legal) so that everyone's money can be used to help with a reduction in harm to society overall.

Alcohol tax is usually built into the price of the alcoholic beverages. If you do not buy alcoholic beverages then you do not pay the tax.

Phi for All, on 23 February 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Again, we aren't lawless, we have laws already in place that should deal with the teen binge drinking. Either the laws aren't being enforced, they have inadequate strength or they're aimed at the wrong people. In this case, I'd say the parents who supply illegal liquor to minors need to suffer more than those parts of society that aren't involved.

Since teenage binge drinking is a major problem, any current laws are doing a poor job and more is required.

There is little point in puting a child in a discount candy store and telling them that they are not allowed to buy any lollies.

Therefore a requirement for reducing teenage binge drinking would be to both increase the prices of alcohol and reduce the number of liquor stores, and both would not do many aldults any harm either.

Currently for drugs, the crims are running the lolly stores. So some how we have to remove the incentive for them to run their lolly store and at the same time reduce the supply of drugs. Clearly law enforcement alone is a total failure.

[Moontanman]

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

Alcohol tax is usually built into the price of the alcoholic beverages. If you do not buy alcoholic beverages then you do not pay the tax.


Since teenage binge drinking is a major problem, any current laws are doing a poor job and more is required.

There is little point in puting a child in a discount candy store and telling them that they are not allowed to buy any lollies.

Therefore a requirement for reducing teenage binge drinking would be to both increase the prices of alcohol and reduce the number of liquor stores, and both would not do many aldults any harm either.

Currently for drugs, the crims are running the lolly stores. So some how we have to remove the incentive for them to run their lolly store and at the same time reduce the supply of drugs. Clearly law enforcement alone is a total failure.

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Are you saying that the availability of cannabis should be curtailed or that the availability of alcohol should be curtailed as well or are you talking about hard drugs?

[Phi for All]

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

Alcohol tax is usually built into the price of the alcoholic beverages. If you do not buy alcoholic beverages then you do not pay the tax.

Usually, yes, but not always, and that's why I asked. Here's a link to some of your own government's alcohol subsidies, given to everyone from restaurants to liquor stores to hotels. Many people who stay at a hotel or go to a restaurant DON'T drink alcohol, but their taxes subsidize it. And even Ozzies who never set foot in a liquor store are paying taxes to help make them more profitable.

Quote

Since teenage binge drinking is a major problem, any current laws are doing a poor job and more is required.

More laws? Isn't it easier to give existing laws bigger teeth?

Quote

Therefore a requirement for reducing teenage binge drinking would be to both increase the prices of alcohol and reduce the number of liquor stores, and both would not do many aldults any harm either.

It's clear you think people in general need to stop being able to easily obtain alcohol. If you get your way, what's to stop you from doing the same thing to anything else you think is bad for everyone? A heavy tax on bacon might unclog some arteries but there are lots of folks who don't abuse their pig privileges, yet the tax penalizes them too.

And don't forget that too much of a price hike invites the criminal element to come in and undercut the market price. Clearly, raising prices and closing a percentage of the liquor stores has it's limitations, just like law enforcement. Even together, you're still missing some elements that would more precisely address the actual problem of teen binge drinking.

[Santalum]

Moontanman, on 24 February 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Are you saying that the availability of cannabis should be curtailed or that the availability of alcohol should be curtailed as well or are you talking about hard drugs?

Both.

I can only speak for Australia but.........

Alcohol is too freely available legally and is too inexpensive.

Other drugs are too freely available illegally if not too inexpensive.

The alcohol problem could be addressed by restricting the number of liquor licences issues and renewed. This would force up prices and hopefully force people to travel further to purchase alcohol and both would reduce consumption to some extent.

The only way that similar control could be applied to other drugs is to first make them legal and use market methods to make it unprofitable for criminals to produce and distribute them.

[Moontanman]

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

Both.

I can only speak for Australia but.........

Alcohol is too freely available legally and is too inexpensive.

Other drugs are too freely available illegally if not too inexpensive.

The alcohol problem could be addressed by restricting the number of liquor licences issues and renewed. This would force up prices and hopefully force people to travel further to purchase alcohol and both would reduce consumption to some extent.

The only way that similar control could be applied to other drugs is to first make them legal and use market methods to make it unprofitable for criminals to produce and distribute them.

Trying to control behavior the ways you are suggesting will only serve to drive the problems under ground, assuming that it is a problem for everyone makes criminals out of ordinary people and unfairly stigmatizes them. These mistakes have been made in the past and our present problems are at least partly the result of those mistakes, repeating them will not make them the right thing to do....

You nor anyone else can legislate morality nor can you control behaviors just because you don't like them.

Yes, alcohol and drugs should be kept away from children, convincing adults that is a good idea will not happen by restricting what adults can do... The key is to convince adults that keeping drugs and alcohol from kids is good idea. Trying to make things too expensive via taxation is not the way to go, it just drives the trade underground and you loose any control...

I think the most important thing is to make people responsible for their actions, not many years ago you could get drunk and drive down the road an kill a dozen people because you lost control and the law would set you free because you were too drunk to be responsible for your actions. people were given a pass because they were drunk, it took many years but that attitude has gone away and now people don't look at drunk driving as a harmless thing to do. In fact it has become despicable behavior and it is no longer allowed and punishment is handed out to people who drink and drive whether or not they cause cause harm to others. You need to convince people their behavior is wrong not force them to conform to your ideals...

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 24 February 2012 - 04:43 AM

[Santalum]

Moontanman, on 24 February 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Trying to control behavior the ways you are suggesting will only serve to drive the problems under ground, assuming that it is a problem for everyone makes criminals out of ordinary people and unfairly stigmatizes them. These mistakes have been made in the past and our present problems are at least partly the result of those mistakes, repeating them will not make them the right thing to do....

I have not the faintest idea how you have jumped to this conclusion.
Legalising drugs is hardly making users criminals, quite the opposite in fact.

And alcohol consumption and supply is already quite heavily regulated in Australia at least - againts the law to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.05% or greater, not allowed to sell alcohol without a liquor licence, not allowed to purchase alcohol below the age of 18............


All that we are talking about is adjusting that regulation to effect a decrease in overall alcohol consumption but particularly that of teenagers for whom it is against the law any way to purchase alcohol.

Moontanman, on 24 February 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

You nor anyone else can legislate morality nor can you control behaviors just because you don't like them.

Yes, alcohol and drugs should be kept away from children, convincing adults that is a good idea will not happen by restricting what adults can do... The key is to convince adults that keeping drugs and alcohol from kids is good idea. Trying to make things too expensive via taxation is not the way to go, it just drives the trade underground and you loose any control...

Well I beg to differ.

Morality around alcohol consumption is already legislated up to apoint and rightly so.

It is against the law to be drunk in public and you can be arrested for disturbing the peace while drunk, you are not permitted to have any open alcoholic beverages while driving, liquor sellers are not permitted to sell alcohol to intoxicated patrons, on new years eve in Melbourne it is illegal to carry any alcoholic beverages on the street and the police will confiscate them and empty them on to the street.............

When the lowest common denominator in society become too numerous and detrimental to wider society then it becomes necessary to legislate some minimum moral standards. Those that maintain minimum moral standards without legislation are rarely effected signficantly by such legislation and it is only society's scum that complain loudly when it IS implemented.

Moontanman, on 24 February 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

I think the most important thing is to make people responsible for their actions, not many years ago you could get drunk and drive down the road an kill a dozen people because you lost control and the law would set you free because you were too drunk to be responsible for your actions. people were given a pass because they were drunk, it took many years but that attitude has gone away and now people don't look at drunk driving as a harmless thing to do. In fact it has become despicable behavior and it is no longer allowed and punishment is handed out to people who drink and drive whether or not they cause cause harm to others. You need to convince people their behavior is wrong not force them to conform to your ideals...

Yes. And a good way to do that is to legislate minimum moral standards around alcohl consumption so that the police have the power to arrest them when they step outside of acceptible public behaviour. Also restricting and reducing liquor licences so that they find it harder to access alcohol in the first place.

[imatfaal]

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

Both.

I can only speak for Australia but.........

speak "about" not speak "for" - few and definitely less than a majority of the australians I know would support your comments

Quote

Alcohol is too freely available legally and is too inexpensive.

Other drugs are too freely available illegally if not too inexpensive.

The alcohol problem could be addressed by restricting the number of liquor licences issues and renewed. This would force up prices and hopefully force people to travel further to purchase alcohol and both would reduce consumption to some extent.

In other common law jurisdictions that I have studied, it is not the number of licences granted that is a problem - it is the enforcement of those licences. The critical thinker/raving cynic might comment that the issuing of licences is a revenue-raising practice whilst the enforcement of the term of the licence is a costly process
....

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

I have not the faintest idea how you have jumped to this conclusion.
Legalising drugs is hardly making users criminals, quite the opposite in fact.

And alcohol consumption and supply is already quite heavily regulated in Australia at least - againts the law to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.05% or greater, not allowed to sell alcohol without a liquor licence, not allowed to purchase alcohol below the age of 18............

in relative terms - and compared to similar western liberal democracies Australia's alcohol control is about average
....

Quote

Morality around alcohol consumption is already legislated up to apoint and rightly so.

It is against the law to be drunk in public and you can be arrested for disturbing the peace while drunk, you are not permitted to have any open alcoholic beverages while driving, liquor sellers are not permitted to sell alcohol to intoxicated patrons, on new years eve in Melbourne it is illegal to carry any alcoholic beverages on the street and the police will confiscate them and empty them on to the street.............

Is this not really a public order area - rather than a morality issue? It could be that the laws were presaged on the idea that drinking per se is a societal wrong and should be constrained - but I rather think that the mischief that was being countered was public disorder and the difficulty of the authorities in controlling those for whom alcohol had unbound normal restraints

Quote

When the lowest common denominator in society become too numerous and detrimental to wider society then it becomes necessary to legislate some minimum moral standards. Those that maintain minimum moral standards without legislation are rarely effected signficantly by such legislation and it is only society's scum that complain loudly when it IS implemented.

That's rather elitist (the use of the phrase "society's scum" is a bit of a giveaway) - it could be easily paraphrased as the proles must do what the elite decide is best for them. You need a jolly good argument why your "minimum moral standard" has any bearing on me - especially when my ideals seem to be shared by the majority . The maintenance of "minimum moral standards" is oft the rallying cry of proto-totalitarian states and (it's amazing how often they coincide) the moving of a religious power from the spiritual realm to the temporal.

Quote

Yes. And a good way to do that is to legislate minimum moral standards around alcohl consumption so that the police have the power to arrest them when they step outside of acceptible public behaviour. Also restricting and reducing liquor licences so that they find it harder to access alcohol in the first place.

If the police are to regulate moral behaviour will they also arrest for infidelity to a loved one? a lie to a friend? self-deception? No - the police do not act on a morally censorious basis , they act on public order grounds.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Phi for All, on 23 February 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

I would argue, in the case of marijuana, that you would eventually have people who were better growers than anyone else, and those who couldn't grow it (for whatever reason) would naturally gravitate towards them. Would your system allow one person to grow for 19 others as well, as long as the total didn't exceed the legal maximums for 20 people?

The idea is to remove commercial incentive as much as possible. Also to make people pay in annoyance (can't find a reliable supplier easily because most people won't have surplus for more than a couple of friends, main way to get a supply is to produce your own) rather than money as much as possible.
Raising prices (even through taxes, people will accept a price hike more readily if the price is already hight from the tax) mostly results in users becoming poor, and suppliers becoming rich.
I think a position where drugs are actively marketed (by groups like the tabacco companies, or by drug pushers (again, not much of an issue with pot)) should be avoided.

In my opinion, the organized crime and associated lifestyle is one of the most harmful things about drugs like pot/alcohol when they are illegal, almost as harmful as overuse.
More addictive (ie. cocaine), dangerous to produce (ecstasy), and injected drugs would require a different strategy.
I would not consider black market sales harmful as long as they were small scale (one person to his/her friends), other than upsetting the IRS.

Quote

In the case of alcohol, I would argue that, while there are plenty of home brewers and vintners, distilling more aggressive spirits is not something I'd want the average scotch drinker to undertake. Perhaps a person would have to pass a certification test for a license to distill hard liquor, if you still think that's prudent?

Agreed

Quote

There are already laws that restrict public intoxication and harming others while under the influence. Do you feel there would need to be more or stronger laws if pot were legal?

I do not think so. I was mostly putting it in for completeness.

Quote

I think the best argument against your plan is that it still restricts what some don't want restricted, so it doesn't do much to end the motivation for a black market. I think there would be a LOT of people who have limited resources to grow/brew it themselves, and that sounds like demand for illegal distribution. I mean, marijuana is treated just like cocaine, crack and methamphetamine in the US, so how much more of a penalty are you going to impose? There are already too many people in prison for pot.

See above about small scale distribution. Penalties for minor infractions should consist of fines, with the money going to education, licensing and enforcement.
For people running larger operations. I'm not sure, maybe change the prison penalties to large fines.

Quote

Hard drugs, I agree, have a much greater potential to exceed recreational use. I wouldn't say that pot smokers turn to pot when they're in a bad spot, though. Most people I know who partake do it recreationally, just like the people who have a couple of beers at home in an evening.

Most of the heavy (rather than just recreational) pot users I've known were depressed at the time and self-medicating.
I also should clarify/somewhat correct my point. What I should have said is that people having a hard time will sometimes turn to drugs.
Ie. some troubled people turn to drugs, not most drug users use because they are troubled.
This aside, I think pot is the least harmful if used in this context. I'd rate much less harmful than alcohol, beneficial in some cases.

Quote

I don't think those people are harming anyone enough to warrant government intrusion.

Agreed. The goal would be reduce the level of intrusion from the current level, whilst avoiding the harmful aspects of the tabacco industry and prohibition.
I think full legalization would eventually lead to marketing and increased use.

[Moontanman]

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

I have not the faintest idea how you have jumped to this conclusion.
Legalising drugs is hardly making users criminals, quite the opposite in fact.

I was referring to laws that try to restrict the use of drugs, it's quite dishonest to say you are going to legalize pot and then try to restuct it's availability to adults. The problem is use by children, the best way to do that is penalize giving it to under age people...

Quote

And alcohol consumption and supply is already quite heavily regulated in Australia at least - againts the law to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.05% or greater, not allowed to sell alcohol without a liquor licence, not allowed to purchase alcohol below the age of 18............

Then why is this a problem for you? Where I live the minimum drinking age is 21... the maximum allowed alcohol blood level is .03%

Quote

All that we are talking about is adjusting that regulation to effect a decrease in overall alcohol consumption but particularly that of teenagers for whom it is against the law any way to purchase alcohol.

Penalize people who supply alcohol to teenagers, in the US it's felony and you can get in quite a bit of trouble if you provide alcohol to underage people...

Quote

Well I beg to differ.

Morality around alcohol consumption is already legislated up to apoint and rightly so.

Up to a point yes, drunk and disorderly is illegal, you seem to think drinking is immoral in and of it's self...

Quote

It is against the law to be drunk in public and you can be arrested for disturbing the peace while drunk, you are not permitted to have any open alcoholic beverages while driving, liquor sellers are not permitted to sell alcohol to intoxicated patrons, on new years eve in Melbourne it is illegal to carry any alcoholic beverages on the street and the police will confiscate them and empty them on to the street.............

Again is this not enough?

Quote

When the lowest common denominator in society become too numerous and detrimental to wider society then it becomes necessary to legislate some minimum moral standards. Those that maintain minimum moral standards without legislation are rarely effected signficantly by such legislation and it is only society's scum that complain loudly when it IS implemented.

So far all you have demonstrated is that you think drinking is immoral, exactly what minimum moral standards are you suggesting?

Quote

Yes. And a good way to do that is to legislate minimum moral standards around alcohl consumption so that the police have the power to arrest them when they step outside of acceptible public behaviour. Also restricting and reducing liquor licences so that they find it harder to access alcohol in the first place.

Again from what you say there are already quite reasonable laws in effect, how much further would you restrict alcohol consumption?

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 24 February 2012 - 05:49 PM

[Santalum]

imatfaal, on 24 February 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

speak "about" not speak "for" - few and definitely less than a majority of the australians I know would support your comments
In other common law jurisdictions that I have studied, it is not the number of licences granted that is a problem - it is the enforcement of those licences. The critical thinker/raving cynic might comment that the issuing of licences is a revenue-raising practice whilst the enforcement of the term of the licence is a costly process
....
in relative terms - and compared to similar western liberal democracies Australia's alcohol control is about average
....

Perhaps you are partly correct. But also, the larger the number of liquor licences, the greater the law enforcement effort and the more expensive enforcement is.

imatfaal, on 24 February 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Is this not really a public order area - rather than a morality issue? It could be that the laws were presaged on the idea that drinking per se is a societal wrong and should be constrained - but I rather think that the mischief that was being countered was public disorder and the difficulty of the authorities in controlling those for whom alcohol had unbound normal restraints

Perhaps public order is a better description of the problem than morality - morality is much less well defined.

imatfaal, on 24 February 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

rather elitist (the use of the phrase "society's scum" is a bit of a giveaway) - it could be easily paraphrased as the proles must do what the elite decide is best for them. You need a jolly good argument why your "minimum moral standard" has any bearing on me - especially when my ideals seem to be shared by the majority . The maintenance of "minimum moral standards" is oft the rallying cry of proto-totalitarian states and (it's amazing how often they coincide) the moving of a religious power from the spiritual realm to the temporal.

If the police are to regulate moral behaviour will they also arrest for infidelity to a loved one? a lie to a friend? self-deception? No - the police do not act on a morally censorious basis , they act on public order grounds.

You seem to believe that elitism is entirely a bad thing but I disagree.

At least in principle judges and police etc hold themselves and society to a superior behavioural standards than would be the average among the general public without them.

A certain level of ellitism in certain areas of human behaviour is essential for civil society in my opinion.

Moontanman, on 24 February 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

I was referring to laws that try to restrict the use of drugs, it's quite dishonest to say you are going to legalize pot and then try to restuct it's availability to adults. The problem is use by children, the best way to do that is penalize giving it to under age people...



Then why is this a problem for you? Where I live the minimum drinking age is 21... the maximum allowed alcohol blood level is .03%

Because although necessary, these current laws are insufficient to reduce the harm that over consumption of alcohol is causing to Australian society, and probably most other societies. The over availability of alcohol and barely regulated opening hours of pubs etc is nullifying any beneficial effect that those laws were having. Part of the solution is reducing the number of liquor licences, reducing opening hours of pubs and bottle shops and otherwise reducing the supply of alcohol.

Moontanman, on 24 February 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Penalize people who supply alcohol to teenagers, in the US it's felony and you can get in quite a bit of trouble if you provide alcohol to underage people...

Combined with reducing alcohol availability in general.

Moontanman, on 24 February 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Up to a point yes, drunk and disorderly is illegal, you seem to think drinking is immoral in and of it's self...

So far all you have demonstrated is that you think drinking is immoral, exactly what minimum moral standards are you suggesting?

Again from what you say there are already quite reasonable laws in effect, how much further would you restrict alcohol consumption?

No I do not think that alcohol consumption is immoral per se. In fact I enjoy a beer or a wine every now and then myself.

But I do think that its current level of alcohol availability and the current pricing level are leading to major public order problems, particularly around pubs and night clubs.

As much as I do not want to pay double or what ever for my occasional beer or wine, I would accept it if it meant a reduction of the above problems.

[Moontanman]

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Perhaps you are partly correct. But also, the larger the number of liquor licences, the greater the law enforcement effort and the more expensive enforcement is.




Perhaps public order is a better description of the problem than morality - morality is much less well defined.




You seem to believe that elitism is entirely a bad thing but I disagree.

At least in principle judges and police etc hold themselves and society to a superior behavioural standards than would be the average among the general public without them.

A certain level of ellitism in certain areas of human behaviour is essential for civil society in my opinion.


Because although necessary, these current laws are insufficient to reduce the harm that over consumption of alcohol is causing to Australian society, and probably most other societies. The over availability of alcohol and barely regulated opening hours of pubs etc is nullifying any beneficial effect that those laws were having. Part of the solution is reducing the number of liquor licences, reducing opening hours of pubs and bottle shops and otherwise reducing the supply of alcohol.



Combined with reducing alcohol availability in general.




No I do not think that alcohol consumption is immoral per se. In fact I enjoy a beer or a wine every now and then myself.

But I do think that its current level of alcohol availability and the current pricing level are leading to major public order problems, particularly around pubs and night clubs.

As much as I do not want to pay double or what ever for my occasional beer or wine, I would accept it if it meant a reduction of the above problems.

I have a rather strong feeling that we are somewhat polarized on this topic.... And quite possibly will forever remain so...

[Gonçalo Ferreira]

Why should not someone be allowed to keep a cannabis plant at home? Easy to grow and no risks associated with trafficking.

[SeptemberMoon]

If it were legalized, I believe more people would smoke it. However, I believe people would smoke it less over time. It perhaps would be like candy to a child at first, but as we age, we desire candy less even though we can have it any time we want.

When I was younger, I was not allowed to have candy much. Every time I went to the store, I promised myself I would buy one of every kind of candy when I was old enough to do whatever I wanted. I never did do that, because I no longer desired the candy as much. People throughout history have wanted what they couldn't have. once they could have it, it didn't matter as much anymore.