Should alcohol be made less available?

[MrVersatile48]

Should alcohol be made less available?

The Royal College of Physicians has warned that many older people are drinking excessive amounts of alcohol at home.

It has accused the government of focusing too much attention on young binge drinkers rather than those who over-indulge behind closed doors.

The college is calling for alcohol to be made less available and prices raised.

Do you agree? Are people drinking to excess at home? Is alcohol too cheap? What measures should be taken to combat the problem?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread. ... 0317193751

Ian

 

[ChristineES]

They tried that before. They had to do away with it because of bootleggers and such. If people can't buy alcohol, they will still get it. I know how apathetic that sounds and even enabling, but we have a lot of troubles trying to get rid of illegal drugs. If they outlaw liquor, that will just add to the trouble.

 

[Rick W]

Wait a minute.
Wasn't it the UK that legislated longer bar hours to combat binge drinking?
Make alcohol more available at the pub but less available at home.
Now there's a trick for ya.

:smt017

 

[waitinontheLamb]

I say outlaw it. If people want to do it illegally then that is their issue. Same thing with many different issues. Abortion for instance. Illegalize it and then if people want to choose it, they can and do so at their own peril. Alcohol is one of the most destructive things we have available to us. Why should we be the supplier for people to kill themselves and others?

 

[Rick W]

Alcohol isn't regarded as a drug though it very much is. It has it's own class... "alcohol". There's drugs then there's alcohol. It's this difference that I believe stamps alcohol as "harmless". Ads declare, "Drink responsibly", especially for the stronger drink other than beer. But one drink or maybe two and your blood-alcohol content is enough to be found as legally drunk. "Drink responsibly" gets the advertisers/suppliers off the hook that push the drug.

How many mondays have I heard people bragging how drunk they got during the weekend. And other people laugh about it. "He/she can really hold their liquor!" is a great compliment from those who applaud the behavior. It's a socially accepted drug that in my experience has wrought more destruction to people, families and society in general than any other drug known to man.

Alcohol is given a much different face than reality demonstrates. And I seriously doubt the attitudes toward alcohol will change anytime soon.

 

[Rick W]

Another thought...

Are people drinking to excess at home?

With all the push about drinking and driving what can anyone expect? It's good that they have the scrupples to stay home. Does this mean people are drinking more?
Maybe not. Just a shift in locale perhaps.

:smt102

 

[ChristineES]

With all due respect; banning drinking is not a solution to the problem. Where does it stop- some people over eat, are they going to ban food? Candy has no nutritional value, are we going to ban candy. Fast food is incredibly bad for you, are we going to ban that next?
I don't drink at all, I don't like it's taste or the way it makes me feel besides:
I grew up with alcoholic parents, my brother is an alcoholic, and my aunt died of cirrhosis of the liver and I STILL don't think that banning alcohol is the solution.

And remember- even Jesus drank wine and was accused of being a drunkard by the pharisees.

 

[JohnR]

They tried that before. They had to do away with it because of bootleggers and such. If people can't buy alcohol, they will still get it.

If you study your history people were drinking a lot more before prohibition. So the whole movement was effective to some degree. The price at the time went from 25 cents a fifth to 2 dollars. So that helped to keep drinking under control. I see no problem with raising the price. If people want to drink then let them pay more in (sin) taxes. Like the lottery, that is money that can go toward education. So at least something good can come out of it.

 

[Guest]

So it is okay to use money that is gotten from "sinful" behavior?

What then? More advertising to encourage people to partake of that behavior so the coffers are filled? That's what happens with the lottery!

Maybe if we weren't spending something like 9 billion dollars a month on an immoral and illegal war - there would be money for education.

What a wonderful day it will be when education is fully funded and the navy needs to hold a baksale to purchase an aircraft carrier.

 

[Rick W]

So it is okay to use money that is gotten from "sinful" behavior?

What then? More advertising to encourage people to partake of that behavior so the coffers are filled? That's what happens with the lottery!

Maybe if we weren't spending something like 9 billion dollars a month on an immoral and illegal war - there would be money for education.

What a wonderful day it will be when education is fully funded and the navy needs to hold a baksale to purchase an aircraft carrier.

"Maybe if we weren't spending something like 9 billion dollars a month on an immoral and illegal war - there would be money for education. "

I can absolutely see your point. Yet, it's still spending money for what one may consider the wrong reasons.
How about entertainment or sports? How much is spent on a team's yearly salary, ticket sales, stadium construction, advertising on football alone? Entertainment expenditure can feed the world population and wipe out starvation. That is IF people would spend money for all the "right", proper and upstanding reasons.

Face it, no matter what is spent where there will ALWAYS be better causes on which money can be spent. Always. That will never go away.
Do we really need to own our own homes, do we really need a new car or two including the higher insurances and maintainance schedules that goes with buying a brand new car? Do we really need HDTVs, big screens, huge stereos just to mention a few of the creature comforts we can do without. (but don't want to). And what about that computer you're sitting in front of? It wasn't long ago I could I live just as well without the internet. And still can.

So while the government spends money that one's opinion may say it's better spent elsewhere then look at the whole picture of monetary expenditures. We too are just as guilty as the government we funnel money into. So before condemning others and how they spend money and to what end it may be prudent to look at one's own expenses as critically as another's is judged. Something about a splinter and a plank comes to mind.

 

[Guest]

PotLuck - the main point with my post was that we should not use money from sinful behavior to pay for something good.

In other words, just because the money will eventually be used for a 'good end' that doesn't suggest the means by which we got it should be okay.

Robbing a bank to give money to the poor, doesn't make robbing the bank a right action.

In the same way, I would not agree with the notion of having 'sin taxes' to pay for good things like education.

In regards to how I spend my money - everyday we as a family do what we can to pinch every penny. I am driving an almost 20 year old car with no working door handles (from the inside), a crack in the window - to name just a few - and the van we own is almost 10 years old. The computer that I am using to type this message was given to us by a relative, and we pass along all our gently used items to family members and friends to bless them. We grow our own vegetables (just planted seeds yesterday), will be canning and making our own ketchup and tomatoes sauce, etc and if the garden does well enough will provide the excess to our neighbors.

Yes, I do what I can to live as simply as possible PotLuck. Thank you for being concerned about the plank in my eye.


And yes, I believe way too much money is spent on sports, players salaries, advertisements, etc etc. As a nation and a society we waste God's precious gifts for our own comfort and entertainment.

Oh, and the more I read your response, I suppose I should say that we do not have HDTV, rent movies from the library or the local drug store which is dirt cheap, listen to music through our computer or the small radio in the kitchen, do not have cable - getting only 3 channels... do I need to go on?

EDIT: I say these things of what we do or do not do not to edify ourselves, but rather to point out that if you were able to see us or watch us, we do our best to live out what we speak.

 

[Rick W]

Immorality is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you think a mother whose child is starving would consider my way of living as moral? I just bought a home 6 months ago. Would she uphold that expenditure as "right" while she may very well have to bury her child in the near future?
Immorality of monetary spending depends a lot on where you stand in rank of income. To the rest of the world we live in luxury even if we may live in what we see here as poverty.

An immoral war? To you it's immoral. To others it's not. Including christians which don't share your views.

Not long ago 15 kids from our church went to Mexico. They didn't tour the big cities, didn't do the "tourist thing" but visited a few small out-of-the-way villages. They found poverty on a level they never saw before. No welfare programs, no employment services, no health insurance (indeed, very little in the way of medical facilities at all) no running water... just to name a few of the things we take for granted. They literally live day to day.
These kids returned with tears in their eyes. And you know what? They said those people have more faith in Christ than most of us here that profess christianity. It was that which was a real eye-opener for them.

Sin tax? I first heard that term used in Salt Lake City. Does it work? To some extent it does. But it's not the only solution or should I say the more effective means of dealing with alcohol. If we spent even a tenth of the money spent on anti-smoking ads/programs for anti-alcohol publicity we could make a huge difference. Do you think that will happen? Not anytime soon I assure you.
Yes, we advocate "Don't drink and drive" but we don't simply advocate "Don't drink" and leave it at that. Again, the ads tell us to "Drink responsibly" rather than "Don't drink at all". You want to make a difference with alcohol abuse? Then start educating the public the same as we have done with smoking. Until we as a society begin to honestly recognize alcohol for what it truly is no amount of "sin tax" is going to make much difference. Education is the key but the question is, is our society willing to wage war on alcohol as we do on tobacco?

 

[Guest]

Immorality is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you think a mother whose child is starving would consider my way of living as moral? I just bought a home 6 months ago. Would she uphold that expenditure as "right" while she may very well have to bury her child in the near future?
Immorality of monetary spending depends a lot on where you stand in rank of income. To the rest of the world we live in luxury even if we may live in what we see here as poverty.

I would suggest that immorality is in the eye of God - and He has provided the Written Word and the Living Word to guide us in moral living. He has also provided the conviction of the Holy Spirit to guide us as well.

If you are feeling convicted for purchasing a home, then that is between you and God. I can only encourage you to follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit in that matter. If you know of a mother who has starving children, and do not help to feed them - then yes, I believe there would be room to question the morality. As Christ taught us, we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide shelter for the homeless.

An immoral war? To you it's immoral. To others it's not. Including christians which don't share your views.

War is immoral. The only War justified in the Scriptures are those that are God ordained and God directed. We can discuss the immorality of war if you would like - might I suggest viewing this thread already that deals with violence: http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=27472

Not long ago 15 kids from our church went to Mexico. They didn't tour the big cities, didn't do the "tourist thing" but visited a few small out-of-the-way villages. They found poverty on a level they never saw before. No welfare programs, no employment services, no health insurance (indeed, very little in the way of medical facilities at all) no running water... just to name a few of the things we take for granted. They literally live day to day.
These kids returned with tears in their eyes. And you know what? They said those people have more faith in Christ than most of us here that profess christianity. It was that which was a real eye-opener for them.

I agree - in the West we have replaced reliance on God with reliance on things, possessions. Our society teaches individualism and self-reliance - concepts that are contrary to the Scriptures.

Sin tax? I first heard that term used in Salt Lake City. Does it work? To some extent it does. But it's not the only solution or should I say the more effective means of dealing with alcohol. If we spent even a tenth of the money spent on anti-smoking ads/programs for anti-alcohol publicity we could make a huge difference. Do you think that will happen? Not anytime soon I assure you.
Yes, we advocate "Don't drink and drive" but we don't simply advocate "Don't drink" and leave it at that. Again, the ads tell us to "Drink responsibly" rather than "Don't drink at all". You want to make a difference with alcohol abuse? Then start educating the public the same as we have done with smoking. Until we as a society begin to honestly recognize alcohol for what it truly is no amount of "sin tax" is going to make much difference. Education is the key but the question is, is our society willing to wage war on alcohol as we do on tobacco?

Now that we are getting back unto topic, the whole idea of sin tax requires the promotion of sinful behavior to feed the coffers.

Our society is ruled by the dollar, not the Lord. As long as their is profit to be made our society will not give it up.

 

[Relic]

Education is the key but the question is, is our society willing to wage war on alcohol as we do on tobacco?

Amen PotLuck!



Mothers Against Drunk Drivers are a part of society that is working diligently to get drunk drivers off the streets.


Also, reducing the availability of alcohol will only make it go underground "again" as it was in the days of prohibition, not much differently than the drugs that are being grown and manufactured in the garages and basements of small drug dealers and then pushed on the streets these days.


A old poem about going underground in Prohibition-era household:

Mother's in the kitchen, washing out the jugs;
Sister's in the pantry, bottling the suds;
Father's in the cellar, mixing up the hops;
Johnny's on the porch, watching for the cops.


Don't know if young people today are taught about this in history class or if they even pay attention to History, or not...

Remember the days of prohibition and the national dry law?

Read about the History and the problems they had back in the era of the roaring 20's :

For beer drinkers everywhere, the taps would soon run dry. The year was 1919 and the nation had just ratified what later historians would call "the noble experiment." Within one year, National Prohibition would officially be under way.

Dry Roots Run Deep

We Want Beer: Prohibition And The Will To Imbibe - Part 1.
by Carl H. Miller

We Want Beer: Prohibition And The Will To Imbibe - Part 2.
by Carl H. Miller

------------------------------------------------

Take action against drunk drivers:
http://www.madd.org/takeaction

------------------------------------------------


And many a time, what one person can do is to help one person at a time to find ways to overcome their abusing their bodies with too much drink and/or their addiction to alcohol. Sad to say, some drunks don't make a change until they hit rock bottom and find themselves in the deep dark hell of being addicted to it before they get any help to break free from the bondage of it. It's a sad, sad situation. :
But it is a glorious victory once they are helped to stay away from that poison.


Do you know anyone who needs help?

AA
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org


You can even lead a person you know who has a problem with drinking too much to this web site to read this online book AA provides to help people:

http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_tableofcnt.cfm


.

 

[Rick W]

aLoneVoice,
I'm not going to debate war ... whether a particular war is immoral, if all wars are immoral or if a select few are indeed righteous. You classify the war in Iraq as immoral, I don't. Therefore our views are not in agreement and regardless of how much we debate the issue each view will still remain up the the one with the opinion.
If one cites biblical text as the litmus test to gauge the morality of war then the same can be said about feeding the poor. One does what one feels one should, one supports what one feels one should using God's Word to mold one's views. I see the war as a fight against oppression. With all freedom there is a price. With oppression there is a price. I'd rather pay for freedom than pay at the hands of an oppressor. Either way there is a cost. And of course some see it another way. And anything in between by varying amounts.

 

[Guest]

I classify this war as immoral on two accounts:

1) I believe all war, outside of God's direction, as immoral

and

2) Under the qualification of the so-called "Just War" Theory - this current war is in violation as it was a pre-emptive war.

However, this topic is not about the immorality of war or even the morality of it, if you will.

 

[ChristineES]

The fact remains that sin is in the eye of the beholder. I don't believe that drinking is a sin. Overindulgence is a sin, including alcohol. You are saying that we should ban alcohol because some people think it is a sin or some people drink to excess. But what of those who enjoy wine with their dinner? What of someone who enjoys a cold beer after working all day? Their drinking is not overindulgence by any means.

I think we ought to fight real sin.

 

[Guest]

I would suggest that sin is not in the eye of the beholder - unless that "eye" is God's.

 

[TanNinety]

I would suggest that sin is not in the eye of the beholder ...

Romans 14:21 Don't eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble. 22 You may have the faith to believe that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by doing something they know is all right. 23 But if people have doubts about whether they should eat something, they shouldn't eat it. They would be condemned for not acting in faith before God. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.

 

[Rick W]

We are supposed to live by the spirit. Without the spirit of God in us we cannot desern His right from His wrong. Does that mean we can always be right? Of course not. Our eye of descernment sees by way of God, by His intent and purpose for how we should live. Should live doesn't mean we will always live as He desires.
Can we learn? Can we be corrected? Yes, of course we can. It's growing in Christ, maturing in Christ as we continue our walk with Him. Along with this as we grow less like us and more like Him our judgment of His right and His wrong becomes more apparent.
Most anything in excess is sin anyway. Except of course prayer, faith ...
And of course that eye is God's. Through us our bodies. But again, here we are locked in the body totally alone, except by the spirit of Christ, exposed to all the world is and does in the physical. But again we must mature spiritually becoming less of ourselves and more of Him. The miracle is that He heals our blindness so we may see from His side of things. We don't always have that vision, but we will, when we go home.