I am not anti alcohol, in fact i drink some alcoholic stuff occasionally but I do so responsibly. This is a purely philosophical question. I mean if drunk driving, alcoholic parents, assault under the influence of alcohol (or about alcohol) and alcohol addictions are so common, then why is the government not banning it? Is it because the alcohol industry is too profitable (and maybe also taxed) to ban?
If alcohol causes so many problems, then why is the government not banning alcohol?
Oh trust you me, the government would LOVE to ban drinking (at least from time to time). The first problem is one that you already hinted at, the government often taxes the hell out of alcohol partially to stop people drinking it excessively but this in turn means that alcohol becomes a major government revenue that they can't just remove since it would leave a massive empty crater in their budget they would need to fill with something else like higher taxes.
The 2nd reasons is the big sticker though. They simply can't. It has been tried before such as the prohibition era in USA but people simply will not stop drinking and making it illegal causes all sorts of problems not least of all is the explosion of organized crimes such as the mobsters during that time. Alcohol is a problem that is costing us untold lives and money but people simply can't let go of it and its one of the rare cases where the government is truly powerless to stop us.
1
2 Reply
Asker
+1 y
I think they can gain a certain control over it and a lot of it if they really wanted to (entrance by QR code only anybody? businesses shut down because of it). It's not, that they can completely stop us but hinder us significantly.
Again they have made an honest attempt at stopping it which included even banning instruments with which you could brew your own alcohol. I can not overstate just how BAADLY they failed to enforce this ban. The public drive is just too high and it is too easy to produce to actually cut off supply. Furthermore you have to consider that USA is a democracy, public opinion matters a whole lot and if you want to ban alcohol they WILL replace you with someone who reverses that decision in time. It is an unsustainable government position for any length of time.
Morality Zealots tried that almost a century ago, it was called 'Prohibition' it spawned a vast grassroots contraband industry making better than half the citizenry complicit 'criminals' from 'Moonshiners', 'rum runners, bathtub gin, 'speak easy's and vast criminal networks to circumvent the Prohibition.
Territorial gang wars with open gunfire (the St. Valentine's Day Massacre) and IS the reason that private citizens have to pass such rigorous background checks and taxes to buy selective fire firearms.
The popular TV show "The Untouchables" is an embellished serialized drama about those years. Today's regional selective relaxing of Marihuana laws, the tongue-in-cheek 'Cheech & Chong' humor and 'stoner' characters Are today's equivalence.
Actually, you may recall that the nation tried to ban alcohol - it was called Prohibition and they amended the Constitution to accomplish it. You may also recall that it did not work out that well. Leading to "bootlegging," organized crime, "speakeasies" and all the rest.
Some problems don't have solutions, they are just difficulties that must be managed as best they can be. Alcohol is one of the former. It is too deeply woven into the culture, going back centuries and even being tied into certain aspects of Western religion, to be erased by mere legislation - even at the constitutional level.
In the great fight between culture and parchment law, the culture will generally win every time. This was the case with Prohibition and indeed is the case also with tobacco - which even in the 19th century cigarettes were sometimes referred to as "coffin nails." Its' ill-effects being known even then.
The social engineers of the early 20th century believed that all it took to reform society and address the problems attendant to alcohol was to ban it. Alas, it was not to be so, provoking the largest mass violation of law probably in American history and ultimately ending in Prohibition's repeal.
So now the law is seeking to modify that which is cannot "fix." Taxes are imposed to de-incentivize the consumption of alcohol. Age limits are imposed. Penalties for drunk driving increased, and so on. Ironically, these working to modify and moderate the culture's view of alcohol.
This has actually worked. The old ethos of "party hearty" has gradually - not completely but to a great degree - been replaced by an ethic of "drink responsibly." Drunk driving is now taken more seriously. The dangers of "fetal alcohol syndrome" are recognized.
To be sure, the costs of alcohol - and tobacco - remain high. Particularly in public health costs and traffic fatalities. However, what the law could not abolish it has modified.
The irony being is that the failure of Prohibition has led to the erroneous conclusion that the banning of all drugs - especially marijuana - is unrealistic and counterproductive. Thus now the passion for legalizing drugs. The advocates of such a position pointing to the social costs of alcohol and drug consumption being unable to answer the question: "Why does the society want another alcohol?"
It is ironic. The nation started out with a firm and deeply rooted prohibition against marijuana and similar drugs, and decided particularly through the cultural tumults of the 1960s and 70s that "if it feels good, do it." Thus leading to the legalization of recreational marijuana even as the nation bewails the economic and social costs of alcohol.
Of course, society is made up of imperfect and imperfectible human beings, and so such inconsistencies will arise. The only sure thing being that as the costs of drug legalization catch up to the costs of alcohol and tobacco, as surely as night follows day, eventually the cry will go up for the government to do something. Americans often not willing to equate their problems with the costs of their unfettered appetites.
If we ban everything that is unhealthy, then the government will assume enormous control of our lives and those few years by which we thereby extend our lives can be spent in misery.
0
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
They already have a great deal of control over our lives. Including documented love or the convenience thereof. I know, more control is bad. The aspect from which I ask are the cause effects on others, not only on oneself.
I think if you looked at it logically ( as per your question ) it would be banned , Why is it not? Partly the lobby , partly the tax take , partly the history of prohibition , partly the massive addiction ( it would need to be staggered , or somehow limited ) , I drink , I know it would be a good thing if I didn't , but I , like many others have been raised in the horrendous drinking culture in Australia , where even the cricket Nation team was sponsored by a beer company , where AFL football has similar sponsors , where all levels of society brag about how much was consumed.. Its an attitude , and its not required to have a good time.
0
2 Reply
Asker
+1 y
What's the history of prohibition? That's something new to me.
Im referring to all the massive problems that occurred , driving the drug underground , putting vast sums in the hands of serious criminals , like all drug trade , just even more " customers " ..
The fact that the alcohol industry is profitable and generates tax revenue is probably part of the reason why. Also if the government bans alcohol then people are not going to like it and will see it as a restriction of their freedom. People don't always do the right thing, but the government can't ban everything. This applies to gun rights/gun control too. People should be using guns for self defense or if their lives are in danger. However, there are dangerous people who use them for violence instead (e. g. school shootings).
Freedom of choice. You really think government should strip away personal freedoms?
As Homer Simpson said, "Ah alcohol. The biggest problem... and solution to, all life's problems." That's a joke obviously, but it concisely exemplifies its double-edged sword-ness. (Sometimes a drink takes away stress, stops you focusing on something which is ultimately trivial, and reminds you to just chill the f out.)
2
3 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Did I say the government should strip away personal freedoms?
The Government's will not ban alcohol because they get too much revenue from the various taxes the levy in the alcohol for instance in the UK You pay these taxes on spirits, at a rate of £28.74 per litre of pure alcohol, equivalent to £11.50 on a 1-litre bottle of 40% ABV vodka or other spirit and that includes our Value Added Tax (20%) and 54p in tax for a pint of 5% strength lager or other beers and ciders, so when consider how much alcoholic beverages are drunk the amount going into the Government's coffers is significant, is it any wonder why Government's will not ban alcohol.
They might except for two reasons. One, nearly 100% of lawmakers drink alcohol. And two, since most people drink alcohol there is no benefit to lawmakers in voting to ban alcohol. Unlike 100 years ago, they are not going to gain the votes of very many people that don't drink alcohol because, in our modern society, it is not an important issue with non-drinkers.
However, it would be a very big issue with many people that drink alcohol so any politician voting to ban alcohol is going to lose considerable more votes than they gain and usually the margin between winning and losing is only a percentage points.
Covid restrictions here involved the closing of bars and made it illegal for shops to sell it after 10pm. The middle east of course has a long history of banning it on religious grounds. So it is possible to ban it. The problem is alcohol is very easy to make at home and people can easily just pop across borders and buy it. Over here we did ban it but that was because people were extremely religious and wanted government to ban. But as religion faded so did the ban.
There was a temperance movement about 130 years ago that got the government to ban alcohol. Even until a few decades ago you'd struggle to get it in some towns
Because alcohol makes HUGE profit. There’s no way to stop production of alcohol anyways. There’s people in prison that literally make their own alcohol out of juice. Banning alcohol won’t stop people from consuming it. There’s people that hoard alcohol, there’s people that openly make alcohol, and there’s tons of recipes online on how to make your own. Of course the government wants to profit off of something that can’t be stopped regardless.
They already tried that, it backfired in a colossal way and created the Mafia. It also caused liquor to become more popular than beer and didn’t do much to dampen people’s enthusiasm for alcohol.
It’s part of the argument for why the prohibition of drugs has to end.
Sugar, fast food, weed (especially now that it's being laced with damaging drugs and items including glass and PCP), medicine, and many other products in the US cause damage and so many problems. Particularly to the body and health. Yet they aren't illegal either.
@D4nielv people in California always laced weed it is infact a issue and some weirdos will smoke those lacedd chemicals and open their windows for thers to inhale cause there weird
Same reason govt doesn't ban tobacco products, gambling, OTB, slots, etc. The government gets heaps of tax revenue which (they usually claim) will go towards education (and who could be against THAT?). Except it never goes to education and the downward spiral continues.
In the US this was attempted in 1919 with the 18th Amendment. In the end, it was a dismal failure. Finally, in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. For a long time afterward the Feds had problems with stills etc. Then slowly over time, they have allowed people to make home beer and wine. In the US I think it is still illegal to make anything distilled. To ban things like alcohol simply won't work.
Good question. Because they only care about hot button topics. They don't care about what really is causing problems. This is why in the '90s acid rain and the ozone layer were the most terrifying things causing havoc to our everyday lives. The genji are probably would have no idea what acid rain or the ozone is. This is why people call the news fake and don't trust politicians.
Here in the US anyway, it was tried with prohibition and it was repealed after the ban failed so now it is legal, with restrictions. Since it’s already heavily regulated and taxed, the states and localities would have to find other ways to generate revenue that easily.
Ehhhh I don't believe anyone who enjoys alcohol can ever claim they drink responsibly. Unless you're barely starting to drink and haven't realized how much of a disease it actually is. The reason is won't be banned or prohibited is the same reason tobacco isn't banned or prohibited either. There's far too much money the government truly benefits from these sales. Ironically, at the cost of human life.
They tried to ban alcohol during prohibition in the 1920s. All it does is prop up organized crime and allows for an unregulated market and low/dangerous quality products. Just like with the war on drugs. People are overdosing on drugs that are laced or aren't even the drug it was claimed to be. The war on drugs also props up cartels.
Because it makes soooooo much money, anyone who works in government has more then likely gone through a phase of being dependent on it themselves and it's only go underground if they did.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions