Off-Sales Clampdown

[hiker]

Are you saying you think recreational drugs should be the preserve of the rich?

I'm saying that Recreational Drugs are the preserve of the dumb. Lets not get into the "what about the law abiding citizen" arguement. We've been down that road with the Smoking debate and the ban has worked, is working and will deliver huge health benifits down the road.

Alcohol should now be put under the same scrutiny as smoking was.
Restriction, control and pricing finally followed by a general discrimination against the use of alcohol would be preferable.

[hiker]

What we need is a change in the law - selling alcohol or providing alcohol to minors is de facto child abuse and should be treated as such. I would recommend a stiff penalty, even jail for those who do sell/supply any form of inotoxicant to a minor be it a bit of weed or a bottle of bacardi breezer as the initial crime can lead onto to secondary and tertiary offences after the consumption of said intoxicant.

Pubs should have their licences revoked if they knowingly sell to minors

In order to enforce such measure outlined above, the Department of Justice would have employ about 5000 extra Gardai.

Does that sound like a good plan?
Spend taxpayers money by the bucket load employing personel to enforce the laws, personel to pursue lawbreakers thru the infamous Irish judicial system, and personel and buildings in which to imprison the said offenders, providing , of course, you can find a judge to actually put them away.

No, I dont think so!

Its far simpler, efficient and economic, to simply restrict supply in the first place.

[Conor]

Are you saying you think recreational drugs should be the preserve of the rich?

I'm saying that Recreational Drugs are the preserve of the dumb. Lets not get into the "what about the law abiding citizen" arguement. We've been down that road with the Smoking debate and the ban has worked, is working and will deliver huge health benifits down the road.

Alcohol should now be put under the same scrutiny as smoking was.
Restriction, control and pricing finally followed by a general discrimination against the use of alcohol would be preferable.

Hang on. I thought your bugbear was underage drinking? Is your real aim to eliminate drinking altogether?

[hiker]

Hang on. I thought your bugbear was underage drinking? Is your real aim to eliminate drinking altogether?

Impossable to do, I would imagine.
My real aim or at least the aim which I believe to be the best one is to end the love affair we have with alcohol and to place it in the same catagory as other recreational drugs.

Its time to de-construct the myth surrounding our abuse of alcohol.

It is not macho to be able to drink 10 pints in a night.
It is not feminine to get drunk and allow yourself be shagged by however is around.
Pavement Pizza is not art.
Driving your car, yourself and your 3 mates into a brick wall at 140km per hour after a skinful is not "adventurous".
Spending your Dole money on a couple of bottles of VP is not an investment in the future.
We are not losing a National Pass-time.

[Gladstone]

Oh my god (bangs head off the wall) when are we going to start asking why people drink so much instead of attacking supply (which worked SO well with drugs)

My real aim or at least the aim which I believe to be the best one is to end the love affair we have with alcohol and to place it in the same catagory as other recreational drugs.

No that shouldn't be our aim, it shoudln't be a government aim thats the nanny state, it will either happen on it's own or it won't.

Alcohol is NOT addictive, peoples dependence on it is related to other factors.

[hiker]

Oh my god (bangs head off the wall) when are we going to start asking why people drink so much instead of attacking supply (which worked SO well with drugs)

My real aim or at least the aim which I believe to be the best one is to end the love affair we have with alcohol and to place it in the same catagory as other recreational drugs.

No that shouldn't be our aim, it shoudln't be a government aim thats the nanny state, it will either happen on it's own or it won't.

Alcohol is NOT addictive, peoples dependence on it is related to other factors.

Yes, yes, I know your arguement,

"Guns don't kill people, people do"

Well hello, but guns do kill people and alcohol does too. Your American Republican attitude to this does not do you any credit Gladstone.

[The OD]

What we need is a change in the law - selling alcohol or providing alcohol to minors is de facto child abuse and should be treated as such. I would recommend a stiff penalty, even jail for those who do sell/supply any form of inotoxicant to a minor be it a bit of weed or a bottle of bacardi breezer as the initial crime can lead onto to secondary and tertiary offences after the consumption of said intoxicant.

Pubs should have their licences revoked if they knowingly sell to minors

In order to enforce such measure outlined above, the Department of Justice would have employ about 5000 extra Gardai.

Does that sound like a good plan?
Spend taxpayers money by the bucket load employing personel to enforce the laws, personel to pursue lawbreakers thru the infamous Irish judicial system, and personel and buildings in which to imprison the said offenders, providing , of course, you can find a judge to actually put them away.

No, I dont think so!

Its far simpler, efficient and economic, to simply restrict supply in the first place.

Not neccessarily - I think a few 'example' cases should focus peoples attentions. I mean, it is a poison and what would you do with someone who knowingly gave say, arsenic to a child in the full knowledge they were going to take it? A bit of an extreme example but the sentiment remains.

Anyway, must go see a man about a dog (actually a Vet, the auld doggie is sick....so shall see all tomorrow!)

Toodle pips!

[Gladstone]

Oh my god (bangs head off the wall) when are we going to start asking why people drink so much instead of attacking supply (which worked SO well with drugs)

My real aim or at least the aim which I believe to be the best one is to end the love affair we have with alcohol and to place it in the same catagory as other recreational drugs.

No that shouldn't be our aim, it shoudln't be a government aim thats the nanny state, it will either happen on it's own or it won't.

Alcohol is NOT addictive, peoples dependence on it is related to other factors.

Yes, yes, I know your arguement,

"Guns don't kill people, people do"

Well hello, but guns do kill people and alcohol does too. Your American Republican attitude to this does not do you any credit Gladstone.

Actually it IS very similar to the gun argument, while I'm not in favour of a right to bear arms I heard something recently on a democratic media outlet (a Fox for the democrats) that said "who cares WHY they did it, they shouldn't have had guns" after a school massacre.

See they are, like you, missing the point, yes they had guns and should not have had access to them, but ignoring their motive is just plan moronic, as it's the cause, the gun attack is merely the symptom of a bigger problem...Americas violent society, there are plenty of lax gun laws in other countries and they don't have school shootings.

so yes, drinking too much is bad, but the drink is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself, we need to ask ourselves why binge drinking occurs and then put our energy to addressing THAT.

[hiker]

we need to ask ourselves why binge drinking occurs and then put our energy to addressing THAT.

What about the lad or ladette who answers,"Because I can"

I genuinly think that trying to get into the heads of individuals is most definatly a step too far and an imposition of the "Nanny State".

Its not up to politicians or legislatures to know why a person does or thinks what they do. Thats really is Big Brother territory.
A Governments job is to pass laws that make it possable for people in general to live their lives in peace and security within a framework of Laws and Regulations.

Thats it. No more.

If you want to know why somebody drinks too excess, become a Therapist.
So, no, I dont believe "we need to ask ourselves why binge drinking occurs and then put our energy to addressing THAT"

Quite frankly, its none of our fking business.

[Gladstone]

we need to ask ourselves why binge drinking occurs and then put our energy to addressing THAT.

What about the lad or ladette who answers,"Because I can"

I genuinly think that trying to get into the heads of individuals is most definatly a step too far and an imposition of the "Nanny State".

Its not up to politicians or legislatures to know why a person does or thinks what they do. Thats really is Big Brother territory.
A Governments job is to pass laws that make it possable for people in general to live their lives in peace and security within a framework of Laws and Regulations.

Thats it. No more.

If you want to know why somebody drinks too excess, become a Therapist.
So, no, I dont believe "we need to ask ourselves why binge drinking occurs and then put our energy to addressing THAT"

Quite frankly, its none of our fking business.

Oh dear...dear oh dear the ignorance here is truly shocking, it's not a psycological thing or an individual thing it's a sociological thing.

I mean we need to ask ourselves as a society, University reserach or whatever.

I have no problem punishing people who are disorderly, I just have a problem with you wanting to punish those who are not.

Imagine saying, lets just punish people for wreckless driving instead of asking, aswell, why dangerious driving is happening.

Imagine saying lets cure cancer without knowing the cause.

Imagine saying lets kill drug dealers and never ask ourselves why some people are more likley to abuse drugs than others.