Do you think we should be doing more to control alcohol consumption?

High tax rates may make marginal improvements, but changing the feelings of social hopelessness that make people want to drink themselves into oblivion would be more efficacious.

As a smoker, I’m against the arbitrary raising of prices or taxes of things that the government can’t find a real way to fix.

You have to understand why people are drinking the way they do before you can begin to affect lasting change. Taxes might help to a degree as might availability, purchasing limits, sale limits, public education on the effects of continued binge over the long term, all of which could be done with varying levels of difficulty. But in the end it’s about why people do what they do and targeting the root causes. If you think of it as a disease, treating the symptoms (in this case repetitively, excessive, drinking) might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make you healthy. One might consider a social campaign to explain the unique/magnified risks of bingeing, followed by one to change the way people consume, rather than eliminate it. Instead of 14 drinks on Friday night, have 2 every night and then over time reduce it from 2 to 1 – such a campaign would be tailored to the root cause of why people drink, not why they shouldn’t do something as such things are often better done with a positive message rather than a negative one. The challenge is changing the habits of people who genuinely understand the risks but do it because they enjoy it, they have to begin to question it on their own and see a viable and equally enjoyable alternative readily at hand.

The main problem here in Britain is the “binge drinking ” culture which has arisen over the last few years, and nobody seems to know the answer to this problem.
The problem was probably made a lot worse when the govt here relaxed licensing laws where some bars are open nearly 24 hours.
The cats out of the bag now and we have a huge problem
over here.

I don’t think taxing the alcohol itself is a good idea. I think simply taxing those who intentionally cause significant cost to the medical and other industries by way of excessively drinking, smoking, eating etc.

Cut the alcohol by volume (abv) percentage in half without letting anyone know. It then takes twice as long to get as drunk as you were before and most folks can’t invest that much time into getting sauced.

I would but only because I’m no quitter.

While it is attractive to somehow try and control all the bad things everyone does, I think people have the right to drink theirselves stupid if they are unhappy with their lives.

Send them to alcohol education. Give them a few scare tactics, maybe it will dawn on them to change their ways. Believe it or not, alcohol is the worst drug you can do. It harms more organs at once than any other drug as well as killing plenty of brain cells

@mass_pike4 ; Yep, been there, done that – I eventually had to come to terms with it and call it a day. Smartest thing I’ve done so far, and I’m proud to be a quitter. Individual responsibility is the key here. Just because everyone else is doing it, does not mean you must as well. Peer pressure is the dumbest reason to do that (or anything, really) Save yourself first, Sandydog!

@BluRhino: Good for you! I like your words of wisdom. I still struggle unfortunately and use college as my excuse….not a good one, but I’ve been through the education programs. I’m not going to let myself hit rock bottom. I plan on taking it easy and settling down.

Back to prohibition. Truly, I think we should tax alcohol high enough where there would only be rich drunks.

@barbiedoll ;Wont work; people have been drinking since the dawn of man, and will continue till the end. we will always find a way to get high, and alcohol is easy to make. People will make their own rot-gut and then we will have all those issues; as well as the illicit business end. (Ever watch ‘The Untouchables’ series?)

No prohibition. Education works better. In addition, medical treatment as a result of excessive alcohol consumption should not be covered by any health insurance or the UK Public Health System for example. The people should get an invoice from the clinic. Or the parents in case of minors. Gastric lavage at 3 am? Add the surcharge for the night shift. This would end binge drinking pretty soon.

How about Not have the bars open 24 hours. That seems a bit ridiculous.

You all do realize that it is each individual’s choice to drink or not drink? Nobody is being forced to imbibe.

Trying to police what an individual chooses to do to their own body is ridiculous and much more immoral, in my opinion, than even the lushiest of lushes.

There’s no way to ever completely get rid of binge drinking. Regardless of what the laws and taxes are, people will find a way to do it if they want to and if the culture around them accepts it. The best way to change binge drinking is through education and changing people’s opinions of it.

Prohibition won’t work. I don’t think there was ever a full prohibition of alcohol in the UK, but in the US it just led to people making alcohol illegally, which made criminals the sole distributors of alcohol. This made organized crime very rich and powerful. Another unintended side effect is that all types of alcohol were outlawed, but bootleggers had an incentive to make liquor because of its higher alcohol by volume. It’s easier to transport, say, one bottle of liquor than four bottles of wine. So while the wine industry that was beginning here was interrupted, and didn’t really take off again until the 70s, the American people got very used to getting drunk off liquor and making cocktails. Cocktails are still a lot more popular than wine. In a way, prohibition led to a harder-drinking population.

think about it this way. the more you drink, the less others will have to drink. XD

I did not mean to imply that taxing would lower alcoholism. Only drunks can reduce their own problem. Just taxing at the highest possible rate could help bring down gas and other taxes and maybe, just maybe, would be used by the politicians to put the money where it is most needed. NOT foreign aid. To get extra controversial, I also believe the same for illegal drugs. Tax the hell out of them. It might even bring the murder rate down. Notice I did NOT say it would lower drug abuse. This is solely an economic answer. If it lowers drug and alcohol abuse, more power to it.

If the abusers drive, I say jail for life or the death penalty. I see abusing alcohol and drugs and driving as violent crimes. Get the non-violent criminals out of jail and make them do free labor. I also applaud the Arizona tent cities for violent criminals, and those non-violent criminals who need meals and cots. I am serious about all of this.

Taxing alcohol helps pay for the public damage and resources they cause, but barely reduces the amount. Perhaps the idea of watering down the alcohol would help make a dent in it, but most likely, a strong educational program in the media would help.

Education is always the best solution. You can’t force people to stop drinking, you have to get at what makes them want to drink in the first place.

@mattbrowne Your idea has merit in that it places the financial cost of treated alcohol abusers directly on them.

Unfortunately, I know of no way to put the social cost and the impact on their families on their tab. Their diminished productivity and the duration of their productive contribution to society is borne by us all in higher costs for goods and services.

Prohibition is not solution. Passing and enforcing laws that hold those who sell alcohol to the intoxicated responsible would help only a small amount.

Arresting and jailing drunks would be of no help, even if you could force them into drug rehabilitation. Even for those who truly want to change, the relapse rate is tragically high.

Public humiliation of chronic drunks is socially distasteful although it could actually work. That does not mean we should do it.

@Dr.Lawrence and others which can offer only negative comments, you had good points. However, it seemed that you just shot everyone else’s ideas all over the place. If you can do that, I think you could also offer something constructive. Prohibition proved it did not work. Taxing would have a possibility. I do think that if it is humiliating to take one’s own responsibility for an action, then that’s too bad. I heard an idea that anytime that a drinker or alcoholic drove, that they have signs on the licenses for all to see, “I am a drinking driver.” It would deter my death penalty for them for a bit of time and others would be more careful around them. Keep thinking.

@Dr_Lawrence – Actually, there’s lots of middle class kids engaged in occasional binge drinking. Their parents can afford to pay the hospital bill, but they won’t like it. Why should the rest of the insured folks pay for planned stupidity of a minority?

@mattbrowne I agree with that wholeheartedly!

@barbiedoll I am sorry you understood me to be shooting down everybody else’s ideas

@Lawrence, just get something creative or constructive in there. If you can shoot down, you can also supply something. We can all shoot down and act helpless. Go for it.

I don’t know if you should do more to control your alcohol consumption. How much do you drink?

I dont drink much at all – only on ocassion do I drink whisky.
Just a beer every now and then.
Main problem in Britain is crowds of young people who go out to get drunk and cause chaos. Seems to be a herd thing here. If your not sozzled then your deemed as not enjoying yourself. It has to be seen to be believed.