Should the government regulate how much alcohol is consumed?
Should the government let people drink as much booze as they want (as long as they don't drive!)? Or should they regulate in some way, preventing too much from being consumed, and by the wrong people (e.g. minors)? If so, how would they go about this?
Yes
Side Score: 3
|
 |
No
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Regulation of consumption is vital for everyone's well being. Without it, anyone could consume lethal amounts of alcohol without anyway of stopping them. Although I'm sure it is a big money spinner, it can't be more valuable than a life. I don't know the latest statistics, but I'm fairly sure more people suffer ill health as a result of alcohol abuse than say, Cocaine. Its damage isn't limited to one person either. My Mum was predicted to waltz out of school with A's and B's across the board. Then her Dad was afflicted with various liver issues, as a result of excessive drinking. She dropped out to care for him when she was 15, he died, and she left with what is equivalent to 2 GCSE's. Now she's in a dead end job, which she hates. I think to achieve responsible drinking, alcohol must not be glorified in the way it is. How many times when you switch on the TV do you see an advert for cocaine? Compare that figure with alcohol. We should also have a more hands on approach with the youth culture. Too often do I hear of my classmates downing 7 bottles of WKD, or swigging lager on a street corner. They seem to think that it is mature and cool. To combat this, I propose much more graphic and shocking details of the effects of irresponsible drinking. If shock works, then so be it. I am not saying that alcohol must be banned; as I type this, I am enjoying a delightful glass of eggnog. But I have an element of control that I feel others need. Side: yes
1
point
SO you believe that its up to the government to control people, rather than they themselves decide what's best for them? People don't like this level of restriction of their civil liberties for a reason, it's like going back against all the years of progress we've had. Further, prohibition/regulation doesn't work. The UK has one of the highest teenage drinking levels in the world, yet teenagers can't even buy alcohol. Go around Europe, many countries have the age at 16, law doesn't dictate reality. Look at Holland, as far as I know, the only place in Europe you can buy weed, lower use than most of Europe. Look at prohibition in the US, alcohol consumption sky rocketed by something crazy like 1000% percent in 20 years, then fell after prohibition was repealed. There's so many examples of how government intervention often has the opposite effect as intended. I agree, people should have control. But telling them what to do isn't the way to give them control. Side: No
1
point
Firstly, I accidentally reported you when trying to click "dispute", so apologies for that. Secondly, I'm not talking about restricting what people can do. If people WANT to go out and drink 20 pints, then I agree, there's no point in restricting them. But all I would like to see in future is people to be more informed. Tell me, have you ever seen an advert telling you that cocaine is great, and you should totally buy some right now? No, but I see this every day for alcohol. Also, I didn't mention prohibition, I agree that prohibition is useless. Do I want the government to control people? Absolutely not. Do I want them to put more effort into making sure that we never need to massively regulate consumption, by launching strategic advertising campaigns? Yes I do. I agree, telling people what to do won't give them control. But not doing anything won't give them control either. Side: yes
1
point
|
I don't think it is necessary to impose regulations on alcohol consumers who are presumably over the age of eighteen, are fully aware of consequences of drinking lethal amount of alcohol, and are mature enough to be responsible for their decision. Addicted alcoholics, who are certainly aware of the consequences and their responsibilities but not able to control themselves due to the addictiveness, must be treated through psychological treatments. Controlling alcohol comsumption would only lead to recalcitrance, because if they are not mentally recovered, the could acquire alcohol products through illegal means anyway. We also have to deal with economic impacts if the regulation were to be realized. Controlling the amount of alcohol consumption would obviously decrease the sales volume of alchohol products, and unless the government finds the 'happy-medium' with the industry promptly after the regulation, this might bring some serious economic and political impacts. As always, it is the matter of finding the 'happy-mediun'. Side: No
From a personal standpoint, I don't think the Government should regulate anything that relates solely to a person. Whilst I can see some flaws to this (i.e. a person drunk driving and killing others because they were allowed to drink too much) I think that one should not inhibit another's freedom. Personally, I believe that if the freedom of choice is allowed for a person, an equilibrium will be met at which one can function in society. For example, if we let a person drink as much as they want they could go overboard but eventually may realize that it is stupid and pointless and reach a comfortable level of drinking (if at all). If you think about it, why would we PAY the Government (taxes) to merely restrict our freedoms if they don't hurt others? To imprison us for something I believe is a God-given right. Side: No
1
point
1. How much you can drink is regulated. The amount you are allowed to drink if you are under 21 is 0. That's the regulation. 2. It's also enforced enough. There really isn't much else you can do beyond ask for an ID. 3. Telling adults you can drink X amount will not go well at all. In fact I predict bars would hold "drink 30 whatever beers" or "drink 10 shots in a row" events, whatever the amount is, and free drinks for your friends if you get there. It would do more harm than good. Side: No
1
point
first off how could it. it can barely monitor drugs. partially allowing something would make it impossible to monitor. plus partially allowing is stupid. allow or don't allow. and on the allow or don't allow, i think prohibition taught us. for those of you who don't understand the full extent of prohibition: a few sicillian immigrants became richer than the U.S. government. Side: No
|
