# Raise the legal drinking age to 21?



## chode84 (22 October 2009)

As a lot of you have probably seen already this morning, there is an article on the front page of the SMH talking about raising the drinking age to 21 and also doubling the cost of a standard drink to curb alcohol related violence.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-lift-minimum-drinking-age-to-21-20091021-h92i.html

I personally think it is an idiotic idea and this can be seen as a failure first hand in the USA. And doubling the price of a std drink? Hardly going to curb the alcohol related violence. People will just get their fix via other means. Getting sick of do-gooders trying to get their 15 mins. of fame with stupid front page stealing idea's like this.


----------



## pilots (22 October 2009)

chode84 said:


> As a lot of you have probably seen already this morning, there is an article on the front page of the SMH talking about raising the drinking age to 21 and also doubling the cost of a standard drink to curb alcohol related violence.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-lift-minimum-drinking-age-to-21-20091021-h92i.html
> 
> I personally think it is an idiotic idea and this can be seen as a failure first hand in the USA. And doubling the price of a std drink? Hardly going to curb the alcohol related violence. People will just get their fix via other means. Getting sick of do-gooders trying to get their 15 mins. of fame with stupid front page stealing idea's like this.




I have spent time in the USA, the drinking age of 21 is working, you don't see the same trouble with the young people in the USA that we see every night here on TV.


----------



## MrBurns (22 October 2009)

Well I think they have to do something and that may be a start but they wont get away with it because the drug pushers at the alcohol companies need your kids to get drunk as early as possible to keep their profits up.

Increasing penalties for violence might help, if you go round punching people in the face you go in the slammer , how's that for a start ?

But that wont get very far either they wont protect the public from violence if they cant even keep pedophiles away from kids after release into publicly funded housing.

The whole system is a farce and a crims paradise.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

I say lower the drinking age to 16 for beer and wine, as it is in Europe.  That way it becomes about having a social drink with friends and family, rather than getting trashed as soon as you hit 18/21.


----------



## Agentm (22 October 2009)

have you researched this through?

regardless of the alleged failure in the usa.. the human brain is not adult until way past the 18 years old region.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2006/02/06.html

i would have thought a suggestion of minimising alcohol in these years of brain development would also be very positive move against one of the biggest problems facing our society atm..


----------



## MrBurns (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> I say lower the drinking age to 16 for beer and wine, as it is in Europe.  That way it becomes about having a social drink with friends and family, rather than getting trashed as soon as you hit 18/21.




Getting wasted on beer is a national sport here so thats not such a good idea for Oz.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

It is the stage from 15 to 20 years that are the transformational years from parents being responsible for their children to the youths taking responsibility for their own actions. Many simply can`t handle alcohol and do stupid things. 

On another note about fighting etc. People have been hurting each other since recorded time. The venues serving alcohol and alcohol itself have always been the catalysts for this eternal desire.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

Agentm said:


> i would have thought a suggestion of minimising alcohol in these years of brain development would also be very positive move against one of the biggest problems facing our society atm..




Is alcohol the problem cause or effect of the problem though? 

Perhaps the problem is kids not having much to do, or not being allowed to do anything, so drinking becomes rebellious in nature, as it is one of the few things they are now allowed to still do in this nanny state of ours.

Just recently someone successfully sued a school for an injury sustained during school sports. What incentive is there for anyone (even parents) to encourage their kids to go out and seek other (non alcohol) forms of excitement?


----------



## chode84 (22 October 2009)

I too lived in the USA and was 18 at the time. The only thing that raising the drinking age to 21 will do is send 18-21 year olds "underground" so to speak. I saw (and engaged) in it every week myself. Better to get blind drunk in a licensed venue? Or at some college party? (Personally Id prefer the party, but from a safety point of view its probably not the best place).

And why should I have to pay twice as much for a drink because some hot headed ******** can't control himself? They are usually the same old suspects involved in fights so maybe we need to punish them further.


----------



## Ageo (22 October 2009)

Yep up the minimum age to 21 then double the cost of alcohol so kids can load up on drugs for a fraction of the price. But then we should ban drugs so they will stop doing that also.........


Oops its already banned.

Problem continues..................

Revenue increases..................

Public still no better off...........

Politicians much happier with pay increase............


And the world keeps spinning


----------



## wayneL (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Is alcohol the problem cause or effect of the problem though?




Top question.

As you say, the observation in Europe (and the great contrast with the UK) indicates that is cultural.


----------



## aaronphetamine (22 October 2009)

Make Alcohol illegal in this Country and legalise MDMA and there will not be one strand of violence in this country while people are out clubbing. And if they are legalised it means that they are being QA'd by pharmaceutical companies which means it will all be properly made.


----------



## MrBurns (22 October 2009)

The law is way too soft, thats the root of the problem.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

aaronphetamine said:


> Make Alcohol illegal in this Country and legalise MDMA and there will not be one strand of violence in this country while people are out clubbing. And if they are legalised it means that they are being QA'd by pharmaceutical companies which means it will all be properly made.



Let us know of the long term neurological effects from taking perception alterers. And by the way ... 



> MDMA is criminalized in most countries in the world under a United Nations (U.N.) agreement, and its possession, manufacture, or sale may result in criminal prosecution.


----------



## Cam (22 October 2009)

I agree with Wayne L.  It's not the drinking age, its a cultural problem.  We have an immature culture.  Europe hasn't.  Unfortunately I don't think that its maturity level which will change with time - the UK is some evidence of that.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Let us know of the long term neurological effects from taking perception alterers. And by the way ...




About the same as long term binge drinking, ignoring the liver and other damage alcohol does. You cant say alcohol doe not alter perception. In fact other drugs make you much more lucid than what alcohol does. (hence why all the baby boomers that are now trying to ban everything took a heap of LSD in their time 

It is quite interesting if you look into the chemistry side of things. Alcohol is basically only legal because it is one of mankinds oldest drugs. There are illegal drugs out there that are a lot 'safer' (in their pure from, not street cut/made form), but are simply illegal due to the fact that they have not been around for centuries on end.


----------



## Tink (22 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Top question.
> 
> As you say, the observation in Europe (and the great contrast with the UK) indicates that is cultural.





I have said this before, its a cultural thing.

As for changing the age, I dont think so.. If you can vote and drive, how come you cant drink?

It all comes from home.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> About the same as long term binge drinking, ignoring the liver and other damage alcohol does. You cant say alcohol doe not alter perception. In fact other drugs make you much more lucid than what alcohol does. (hence why all the baby boomers that are now trying to ban everything took a heap of LSD in their time



One thing they all are used for is to alter the natural brain function. For some it is to escape the mental pain of everyday life. For others it is to an induce a state of euphoria. Like every vice, moderation is the key.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Like every vice, moderation is the key.




Never a truer word said


----------



## Tink (22 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> The law is way too soft, thats the root of the problem.





I agree with that


----------



## beerwm (22 October 2009)

just cause you change the legal drinking age, doesnt mean people wont drink.

the troublemakers would still drink[parties] or get fake ids.

most australias start at 15 or 16, im guessing.


----------



## Calliope (22 October 2009)

What would be the point. Children under 18 have no trouble getting all the grog they need now, and the law does very little about it. It is a waste of time making laws that can't (or won't) 'be policed.

The policing at Schoolies' Week is only to ensure that the teenagers don't make too much of a public nuisance while drunk.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> just cause you change the legal drinking age, doesnt mean people wont drink.
> 
> the troublemakers would still drink[parties] or get fake ids.
> 
> most australias start at 15 or 16, im guessing.



Not many Australians would reach the age of 16 without having tried alcohol and also smoking, both of which are illegal at that age. Prohibition in any form never has and never will work, that's the lesson of history and we see it clearly today as well.

Raising prices only works when there is no alternative. It's already near the point of being cheaper to take (illegal) pills than to drink alcohol. Let's face it, what would you prefer your children did when they reach their late teens? Get drunk, make a fool of themselves and call you at 3am wanting a lift home? Or would you prefer they end up on illegal drugs? I think most would prefer they stick to alcohol.

If it were me, I'd lower the age limit for consumption within licensed premises to 16 and leave it at 18 for bottleshop sales. It's not pubs and clubs that are the problem once you realise that 70% of alcohol is sold at bottle shops and that in 2009 pre drinks are the norm.

It's a reality that people are going to drink to excess, take drugs and so on. If it must happen, and it will, then sticking to alcohol and drinking it inside a pub / club with proper security is the best we can realistically do in terms of harm minimisation.

As for the culture, all I can really say is that we've had late night venues for several decades but only this century does there seem to be a real problem. So it's not nightclubs etc per se, it's the overall culture of society. A society in which there are usually no consequences for committing such crimes and where violence is glorified.


----------



## Tink (22 October 2009)

By cultural, its the attitude towards alcohol in this country. 

Then when they travel out of the country, they are in all sorts of trouble overseas, and there they are on the news.

I am actually for the warnings on alcohol, as they did with cigarettes. 

Time for the alcohol companies to get abit of heat.


----------



## nunthewiser (22 October 2009)

Another fine post smurf .... thankyou

where i am and what i do i also have noticed a heck of a rise in "pill " use and other "manufactured illegal substances" . to buy a premixed spirit stubby in a local club is $ 10.50 a stubbie , a beer 7/8 bucks ........ water free ....... pop a pill and boogie the night away cheaply seems the go these days.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Another fine post smurf .... thankyou
> 
> where i am and what i do i also have noticed a heck of a rise in "pill " use and other "manufactured illegal substances" . to buy a premixed spirit stubby in a local club is $ 10.50 a stubbie , a beer 7/8 bucks ........ water free ....... pop a pill and boogie the night away cheaply seems the go these days.




What is a carton of Swan or Emu then? Over $50.00


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> pop a pill and boogie the night away cheaply seems the go these days.




A lot of people my age do exactly this. $20 - $40 worth for the night, drink only free water = cheap night out.

The only problem is the fact that because these substances are made illegally you can never know exactly what is in them. As Aaronphetamine said, legalise it, tax it, have big pharma make it, everyone wins. But unfortunately 'the masses' have been so indoctrinated with anti drug propaganda that pollies would never get away with it.

Perhaps in a couple generations...


----------



## nunthewiser (22 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> What is a carton of Swan or Emu then? Over $50.00





yep, something around that number retail.wholesale for the clubs is a bit different  . they making an absolute killing on markup but losing volumes because of the availability and cost factor of popping a pill instead .


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

I didn`t realise illegal substance use is blatantly widespread. 

Don`t anyone think for a minute that these chemicals are all rose coloured glasses stuff. Wik says (and surely it`s all lies, right)



> Side effects
> 
> The most common adverse side effects reported by users include:
> 
> ...


----------



## awg (22 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> A society in which there are usually no consequences for committing such crimes and where violence is glorified.




Agree with what you said, but not sure about the above.

Getting pissed and into a blue was totally commoplace when I was a lad, more than 30 yrs ago.

Lowered inhibition and aggresive young men is SO predictable.

21 is impractical, has been 18 for too long to change now.

What i have found disturbing is the almost universal tendency to encourage persons as young as 14 to drink.

Having 3 teenage sons, I have lost count of the number of times I have asked for them not to be served alcohol.

I am not a wowser by any means, and they do drink anyway (I allow complete freedom at 17 fwiw)

The very same people who were pressing piss on them at 14, if I had said, well why not hand them a spliff as well, would have been horrified...both illegal though!

Or give them a snort of heroin perhaps, a drug, that whilst very addictive, is generally understood by the medical profession to not be harmful to the organs of the body, if administered in a controlled dosage, unlike tobacco or excess alcohol, or most other drugs in common recreational use.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> I didn`t realise illegal substance use is blatantly widespread.




I can guarantee you that 90% of people in my age and social class (upper middle im guessing) have at least tried illegal substances, be it dope or chemicals.

To fire back at you, here are the negative effects of alcohol:


> Excessive alcohol use increases the risk of a number of diseases: fatty degeneration of the liver
> infection of the liver
> liver cirrhosis
> sleeping disorders
> ...




In the testing of MDMA (active substance in ecstacy) on rats it would take humans the equivilant of 50 - 60 pure pills to overdose (depending on weight) this would be about 5000 milligrams, when a 'dose' is considered to be 100 - 150 mg. 

It is the other non active substances in illegally manufactured pills that cause deaths. More people dies riding horses each year than from overdosing on ecstacy, and its intersting to note that Switzerland, Israel and Canada have all moved to human trials of (pure) MDMA to treat depression and post traumatic stress disorder in veterans.

I just think what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why can a drug like smokes and grog be legal despite the huge known health risks, when there *ARE* other much safer drugs that remain illegal. Either ban it all, or legalise it all imo


----------



## treeman (22 October 2009)

The media is blowing it all out of proportion, alcohol and violence has been around for 100s of years, the more its blown out of proportion the more attractive it gets. Maybye we should all live in rubber houses, work 9 - 5 and have a curfew at 8 and increase taxes ofcourse lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> yep, something around that number retail.wholesale for the clubs is a bit different  . they making an absolute killing on markup but losing volumes because of the availability and cost factor of popping a pill instead .



I'm not in the industry but I do know that one of the big problems the nightclubs especially have (in terms of running the business) is that:

1. Most customers have pre drinks before going out, thus lowering their consumption whilst on the premises compared to what it would otherwise be. 70% of alcohol is sold at bottleshops.

2. The rest are taking pills and not drinking at all (unless you count water).

It's not like 20 years ago when massive sales across the bar were assured as long as you could get people in the door. Now you get them inside only to find they spend little if anything because they are using pills instead. It's a bit hard running a business when your "customers" are spending their money on something the law prohibits you from selling.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2009)

awg said:


> Agree with what you said, but not sure about the above.



I was thinking in terms of legal consequences, not physical. Bash someone senseless and at worst the law might give you a slap on the wrist. That's not much of a deterrent...


----------



## gav (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> In the testing of MDMA (active substance in ecstacy) on rats it would take humans the equivilant of 50 - 60 pure pills to overdose (depending on weight) this would be about 5000 milligrams, when a 'dose' is considered to be 100 - 150 mg.
> 
> It is the other non active substances in illegally manufactured pills that cause deaths. More people dies riding horses each year than from overdosing on ecstacy, and its intersting to note that Switzerland, Israel and Canada have all moved to human trials of (pure) MDMA to treat depression and post traumatic stress disorder in veterans.
> 
> I just think what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why can a drug like smokes and grog be legal despite the huge known health risks, when there *ARE* other much safer drugs that remain illegal. Either ban it all, or legalise it all imo




Then lets legalise steroids too...


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

gav said:


> Then lets legalise steroids too...




Why not. If they are no more harmful than the currently legalised drugs im all for it.


----------



## moXJO (22 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I was thinking in terms of legal consequences, not physical. Bash someone senseless and at worst the law might give you a slap on the wrist. That's not much of a deterrent...




IMO this needs to be addressed. You can bash someone half to death and get off with a slap on the wrist. Increase penalties, and if over .05 double the penalty. Everyone seems to think it's their right to bash people they don't like- or that look at them the wrong way.


----------



## beerwm (22 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> If it were me, I'd lower the age limit for consumption within licensed premises to 16 and leave it at 18 for bottleshop sales. It's not pubs and clubs that are the problem once you realise that 70% of alcohol is sold at bottle shops and that in 2009 pre drinks are the norm.




so 16 year-old school kids getting drunk with 40+ adults....

maybe you didnt think that through.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> It is the other non active substances in illegally manufactured pills that cause deaths. More people dies riding horses each year than from overdosing on ecstacy, and its intersting to note that Switzerland, Israel and Canada have all moved to human trials of (pure) MDMA to treat depression and post traumatic stress disorder in veterans.
> 
> I just think what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why can a drug like smokes and grog be legal despite the huge known health risks, when there *ARE* other much safer drugs that remain illegal. Either ban it all, or legalise it all imo



Sounds similar to the pot debate that went on years ago about legalising it. I don`t see any problem whatsoever with people consuming whatever they want. The problem arises when the lives of others are affected by the user (including alcohol) such as smacking into a power pole. If I`m dealing with someone "coming down" from an ecka trip then I certainly won`t be putting my life in their hands or allowing them to handle my finances.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2009)

I agree with the fact that as long as it doesn't hurt others then people should be able to do what they want.



Wysiwyg said:


> If I`m dealing with someone "coming down" from an ecka trip then I certainly won`t be putting my life in their hands or allowing them to handle my finances.




Same goes for people with a hangover? Anyway if you have a super fund your probably allowing them to handle your finances already :

EDIT - just a side note with pot, i think one problem is the fact it is hard to measure the active content when it comes from a plant, as each is different. And i bet half those hippies that wanted weed legalised 20 - 30 years ago are now the ones pushing the anti drug propaganda.


----------



## gav (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Why not. If they are no more harmful than the currently legalised drugs im all for it.




Actually they are a lot less harmful than alcohol and cigarrettes.  Usually it seems when people are all for legalising party drugs, one mention of the "S" word and its "oh but thats dangerous" 

It's actually legal to buy and use steroids in the UK, but for personal use only.  However I wouldn't use if they were made legal here.  But then again, I don't drink or smoke either...

One thing I will say though, to anyone that causes any damage to their body from using drugs: you can pay your own medical bills - not the public health system.  That includes alcoholics and smokers.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> I agree with the fact that as long as it doesn't hurt others then people should be able to do what they want.




Hallucinogens have only become readily available in recent times while alcohol and tobacco have been consumed for much longer. Maybe when more is understood then it will be decriminalised.

P.s. don`t do it in Indonesia.


----------



## aaronphetamine (22 October 2009)

I find it funny that most members here on a Stock Forum - which promotes free markets, democracy, freedom of information in the financial markets, transparency etc is so content with the way we are all losing our civil liberties due to sudden, rash and uninformed legislation passed to please the general brain-washed, scare mongered public.

Where it concerns the financial systems and companies; less regulation is more and less laws the better and im sure we are all in a uniform support on this notion. But when it concerns the civil liberties of not only yourselves, but every citizen of this country most of you seem to be of the notion that the less civil liberties individuals have, the better. 

And its not your fault at all. Youve all been raised to conform and meet societies expectations which have been set by the governments and washed into you by media sensasionalisations and scare mongering. 

For instance due to media beat ups propogated through mass media mediums such as the TV and Newspaper I bet every person who lives in Brisbane sincerly believes that after about 10pm on a Friday and Saturday night Fortitude Valley (Brisbane's Clubbing District) cessates into a bloody, degenerated cess pool of belam where rapes, fights, stabbings, abuse and sex run rampant and uncontrolled by the cities unwhelmed number of police and ambulance officers. 

There can be no good outcome through this stigma that has now entrenched itself with in Brisbane and im sure every other clubbing district of every city in Australia - and it serves no purpose other than to spruke up the media ratings and mislead and deceive the unmoderated and generally unimformed public to believing that destroying our civil liberties further is the only way to reach an effective and sustainable outcome.

This thread should really be renamed from "raise the legal drinking age to 21" to "we'd like to decrease our civil liberties further please"...

I'd like to share a little scenario here. What if I told you that the hepatic and neuro toxicity of common legal paracetamol is magnitudes higher per dosage, than say, several illegal methylated phenethylamines? Would my argument hold any sentiment in the minds of the general public after decades of tyrannical nonsense thrown in their faces daily by government outlets and media through the likes of the Australian Government, US Government, DEA and media outlets... Ofcourse you would throw my facts out as rubbish... why would the government lie and decieve you ? Ofcourse cigarettes and healthier than MDMA... becuase the government says theyre legal.

Abusing paracetamol (legal) and MDMA (illegal) will both land you in the grave early - but so will abusing salt and polyunsaturated fats (both legal)

I have a degree in applied science chem major.


----------



## awg (22 October 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> ..... pop a pill and boogie the night away cheaply seems the go these days.




and no vomiting in your taxi on the way home


----------



## Kash Kosmo (22 October 2009)

In Star Trek they use synthahol 

One idea is lower the Alcohol % so one will need to consume a few litres of liquid to reach .01

But seriously its one of the governments biggest revenue sources 

KK


----------



## gav (22 October 2009)

Kash Kosmo said:


> But seriously its one of the governments biggest revenue sources




Why not make illegal drugs legal, so they can be huge revenue sources for the govt too?


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2009)

gav said:


> Why not make illegal drugs legal, so they can be huge revenue sources for the govt too?



Social costs the whole community would have to bare is inhibitive and morally wrong. Medical, employment, education, family would all be adversely affected by people who become addicted (like al/tob.). Not only addicted but need a bigger fix because of the "coming down" phase. It would be near impossible to regulate as people would make their own or buy on the black market. 

Let us remember the habitual nature of the things we do.


----------



## DB008 (22 October 2009)

I don't think that raising the age to 21 will do anything IMO. And a stupid move if ever done.

As others have said, it will only drive it underground. How many of us got booze before we turned 18? Will it make a difference if you have to be 25 to drink....no.

It's a cultural thing, to a point. l mean, there are 18 y.o's getting para around the world, every weekend. Whether it's here, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, teens will still get drunk regardless. Raising the limit won't go jack. 
Education and been taught from a young age about responsibilities, liver damage might do more than raising the drinking age.


----------



## MrBurns (22 October 2009)

Tink said:


> By cultural, its the attitude towards alcohol in this country.
> 
> Then when they travel out of the country, they are in all sorts of trouble overseas, and there they are on the news.
> 
> ...




Agreed. actually a lot of heat, how about prosecuting hoteliers for serving drunks, there's only been a handful of prosections in years.

The whole industry is a boys club, a drunken immature boys club.


----------



## explod (22 October 2009)

Agentm said:


> have you researched this through?
> 
> regardless of the alleged failure in the usa.. the human brain is not adult until way past the 18 years old region.
> 
> ...




In my 28 years in the police force what you say about the human brain seems to be correct.  Since have learnt that the frontal lobes of the brain, particularly in males does not mature till about age 27.  This being the case means that they should also not be in the debate on the issue.

Motor car accidents, brawling on the street, drunkeness figures all support the neurological reserach.  

the answer may be in following posts, this is just the first on this thread I have looked at


----------



## explod (22 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Agreed. actually a lot of heat, how about prosecuting hoteliers for serving drunks, there's only been a handful of prosections in years.
> 
> The whole industry is a boys club, a drunken immature boys club.




This is a conundrum, as a young sergeant I put in many reports and briefs against hoteliers for serving drunks, they were never approved, learnt gradually that the Inspectors used to enjoy free drinks at those establishments.  Attended a fatal some years before as a Constable, a head on ,one driver killed instantly was a local ambulance driver who I knew personally,(small country town) the ambulance driver who attended was his buddy (they were the only two stationed in the town together)  The driver of the other car was proved to be on the wrong side of the road.  He was 18 years old and had just left the hotel where it was proved at the inquest later that patrons had physically tried to stop him from driving, said to have been staggering drunk.  The publican had filled him up and though the Coroner had made certain findings, nothing ever happened.   The accident was out of my area, the Senior Constable who got the call asked me to do it as he was too inebriated himslef.  The very hotel was his personal watering hole where he never ever had to pay for a drink, and often whilst he was on duty in uniform.

So if you all think I am against *publicans* yo are sure bl...dy right and its time*we did something about it

explosion*


----------



## explod (22 October 2009)

gav said:


> Why not make illegal drugs legal, so they can be huge revenue sources for the govt too?




Agree with that,.... why? it would allow the authorities knowledge of the entire situation and then the ability to bring about some control.  Tax does not concern me but the big leaches making a fortune out of importing or manufacturing it to the detriment of lives would be curtailed, and I can assure as a senior cop in later years I learned that the high class leaches had big connections, and supported some of the higher stations of government. Probably still do.

*explosion*


----------



## explod (22 October 2009)

DB008
It's a cultural thing said:


> Of course, and we have to grow and be a part of the growth together, the only way we can learn.
> 
> However it needs to be removed from the public place and highways.  When I was a youngster I drank with my Farther who was also a friend.  Some of that has sadly gone.


----------



## explod (22 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> What would be the point. Children under 18 have no trouble getting all the grog they need now, and the law does very little about it. It is a waste of time making laws that can't (or won't) 'be policed.
> 
> .




Sad to say that what you relate is close to the mark.  Though many drink outlets try hard the bigger culprit is the parents who buy it on behalf of the minors, in many cases because the monors control the parents or the parents just want the kids to be out of their hair.


----------



## explod (22 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Not many Australians would reach the age of 16 without having tried alcohol and also smoking, both of which are illegal at that age. Prohibition in any form never has and never will work, that's the lesson of history and we see it clearly today as well.
> 
> .




I tried to prevent or shield my kids from alcohol and it did not work, what you say is correct.

However what did work is that, when I found out,  rather than scold I discussed it with them and we worked out boundaries and some understanding, nothing is perfect, but they tended to become more conscious of the ramifications.  The worst was my eldest, she is now a Detctive Sergeant with two great children of her own now, loves life and a drink, told me recently at a girls night out *off duty* that she had fallen off a table whilst doing a dance prank.

The key, is parental and education, but that takes earnest grunt from us all, and I bvelieve we have become lax on real responsibility.  We go crook at the young ones, but what are we really up to ourselves.

*explosion*


----------



## awg (22 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Agreed. actually a lot of heat, how about prosecuting hoteliers for serving drunks, there's only been a handful of prosections in years.
> 
> The whole industry is a boys club, a drunken immature boys club.




Reason it wont happen IMO, is the Hotel association and related Alcohol and Gaming Industry is a very large contributor to both political donation and especially tax.

Even though I do drink myself, I am generally appalled at the excessive drinking culture that exists in society.

If pubs never served intoxicated persons they would be out of business tommorow.

Same with excessive gaming.

Same with smoking to.

Have to balance all that against excessive restriction of personal freedom.

I have long been a proponent of drink drivers being publicly flogged as half-time entertainment at the football, NO exceptions..( just a light flogging on the buttocks, enough to hurt and humiliate, no blood, televised on the big screen)


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> so 16 year-old school kids getting drunk with 40+ adults....
> 
> maybe you didnt think that through.



I can certainly see potential problems and yes it's something I've thought about on and off for years.

16 year olds are going to get smashed on alcohol somewhere. What's safer? Cheap grog on the streets, in the bush or otherwise well away from any form of supervision, security and medical help? Or drinking in a hotel which should have at least something in terms of security and supervision?

I see the whole issue as being about harm minimisation in much the same way as dealing with natural disasters is about harm minimisation. Teenagers are going to drink whether anyone likes it or not just as there will be floods and fires. All we can do is take steps to minimise the harm these things cause, that they will happen is a certainty.

Smoking is another classic example. It's attractive when you're 16 largely because it's "adult" and you're not allowed to do it. Simply by making it an 18+ activity, society sends a very strong message that smoking is an "adult" thing to do. And most 16 year olds want to act like what they perceive to be an adult. 

There's a certain satisfaction in showing that ID and actually being sold the smokes or let in the door of the club. *You are, finally, an adult and allowing you to drink, smoke, gamble and drive is essentially all society offers as a reward*. That's sending all the wrong messages in my opinion, hence all the problems we have with drinking, driving etc amongst 18 - 21 year olds - they're reached adulthood and are taking the only "reward" that society has offered.


----------



## explod (22 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I can certainly see potential problems and yes it's something I've thought about on and off for years.
> 
> 16 year olds are going to get smashed on alcohol somewhere. What's safer? Cheap grog on the streets, in the bush or otherwise well away from any form of supervision, security and medical help? Or drinking in a hotel which should have at least something in terms of security and supervision?
> 
> ...




Well said, 

we need to identify with the needs and feelings of the young, society thinks too much as individual, *me me me*, and not of others and particularly not the needs of young people.   *And they are the future*


----------



## gav (22 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Social costs the whole community would have to bare is inhibitive and morally wrong. Medical, employment, education, family would all be adversely affected by people who become addicted (like al/tob.). Not only addicted but need a bigger fix because of the "coming down" phase. It would be near impossible to regulate as people would make their own or buy on the black market.
> 
> Let us remember the habitual nature of the things we do.




Your argument makes no sense.  How is it OK for society to have the burden of alcoholics and smokers, yet not other drugs?  And I don't see how regulation would be any different to alcohol/cig's.

As Prawn said, allow everything or ban everything...

I also have no probs with the govt taxing the $hit out of it, people will still buy it.  People still smoke ciggies, regardless of how much its taxed.  I know people on the dole who complain about not having any money, yet they always manage to find enough coin to purchase their alcohol and ciggies.


----------



## white_crane (22 October 2009)

aaronphetamine said:


> I find it funny that most members here on a Stock Forum - which promotes free markets, democracy, freedom of information in the financial markets, transparency etc is so content with the way we are all losing our civil liberties due to sudden, rash and uninformed legislation passed to please the general brain-washed, scare mongered public.
> 
> Where it concerns the financial systems and companies; less regulation is more and less laws the better and im sure we are all in a uniform support on this notion. But when it concerns the civil liberties of not only yourselves, but every citizen of this country most of you seem to be of the notion that the less civil liberties individuals have, the better.
> 
> ...




Well said.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2009)

I should add to all my previous comments that whilst I accept that teenagers are going to keep getting smashed on alcohol, or alternatively illegal drugs, I do find that situation an unfortunate one. 

I can only wonder what's going to happen to all these brain fried, sick (physically) individuals in the years ahead - if nothing else it will surely send the health system broke. 

I've never been a particularly athletic or physically fit person and unfortunately it does seem to be at least partly genetic. The sad part though is to realise that I'm now fitter and healthier than the majority of people I see, and yet I've never actually been inside a gym and don't play sport. Yes, I'm thinking that I should get fitter (and I'm going for a run most days now...) but as a society we seem headed toward an awful lot of fried brains, wrecked livers and heart attacks. 

We have more medical knowledge than ever and yet we seem incapable of putting it to preventative use. What, exactly, is going to happen to all those 20 something people that drink to ridiculous levels, do no exercise and live on take away food? There's an awful lot of them so it's an important question. Surely it can't end well and I'm thinking the problems will start in their 40's or even 30's rather than being decades away. So sad...


----------



## Julia (22 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Perhaps the problem is kids not having much to do, or not being allowed to do anything, so drinking becomes rebellious in nature, as it is one of the few things they are now allowed to still do in this nanny state of ours.
> 
> Just recently someone successfully sued a school for an injury sustained during school sports. What incentive is there for anyone (even parents) to encourage their kids to go out and seek other (non alcohol) forms of excitement?



I completely agree with this.   The level of litigation in our society has become farcical and is only matched by the bizarre restrictions and laws of an ever larger nanny state.
This is slightly off topic, but today the Qld government announced that if you park your car and move away more than 5 metres from it without locking it, you will be fined $40!  Soon we will have to ask permission to draw breath.




prawn_86 said:


> (hence why all the baby boomers that are now trying to ban everything took a heap of LSD in their time



Can you substantiate this allegation?  Even provide a few examples?

Why in a discussion like this, do we have to resort to these silly generalities about any particular generation?

As a baby boomer, and someone with many friends also baby boomers, over many years, none of us have ever used LSD, and none of us want to ban anything.  (Well, except perhaps people who make rabid generalisations.)


prawn_86 said:


> I just think what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why can a drug like smokes and grog be legal despite the huge known health risks, when there *ARE* other much safer drugs that remain illegal. Either ban it all, or legalise it all imo



On this reasoning, presumably you would also recommend the legalisation of heroin and ice e.g.?   And extend morphine et al onto supermarket shelves along with the paracetomol?
So we could all happily be addicted on the PBS?
(I assume you're suggesting these would be TGA approved ?)
Would you like to see these approved for the PBS and funded by the taxpayer?


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2009)

aaronphetamine said:


> For instance due to media beat ups propogated through mass media mediums such as the TV and Newspaper I bet every person who lives in Brisbane sincerly believes that after about 10pm on a Friday and Saturday night Fortitude Valley (Brisbane's Clubbing District) cessates into a bloody, degenerated cess pool of belam where rapes, fights, stabbings, abuse and sex run rampant and uncontrolled by the cities unwhelmed number of police and ambulance officers.
> 
> There can be no good outcome through this stigma that has now entrenched itself with in Brisbane and im sure every other clubbing district of every city in Australia - and it serves no purpose other than to spruke up the media ratings and mislead and deceive the unmoderated and generally unimformed public to believing that destroying our civil liberties further is the only way to reach an effective and sustainable outcome.



Same everywhere from Queensland to Tasmania to Western Australia.

I'd have to say though that whilst there is certainly some media hype, the overall clubbing scene is a lot more violent than it used to be some years ago. People got drunk and made a noise and threw up in surrounding streets back then whereas now it's "glassings" and knives.

It's an issue I became quite involved with 4 years ago amidst the extensively debated demise of Club Surreal (Hobart) and I've obtained and recorded a lot of opinions as well as doing plenty of my own research into it all. What I would say in summary is:

1. Lack of legal consequences and the rise of "smart" lawyers has given rise to an entire generation with no fear of being caught breaking the law (just about _any_ law) and a consqeuent lack of respect generally. That is the single biggest issue by far and the almost universal explanation for the problems given by those aged 18 - 25.

2. The uncertainty over planning regulations has lead nightclub operators to adopt a "get in, get out" mentality that puts short term profits ahead of long term viability. They have no incentive to maintain a reputation and their liquor license when there's a real risk of them being shut down through no fault of their own due to planning law changes, whinging residents in newly built flats etc. The significance of that issue varies between cities and states.

3. The growth of pills, at the expense of alcohol, undermines the entire business model thus reinforcing the attitudes from operators in point 2 above. Get in, make money and get out because there doesn't seem too much of a future in this industry anyway.

The end result of this is a mentality of opeators doing everything as cheaply as possible and pursuing maximum revenue and to hell with the consequences. Meanwhile the customers also don't give a damn and have little if any respect for anyone or anything. Put those together and it's a virtual guarantee of trouble that should come as no surprise.


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 October 2009)

I'm all for it as long as the Governor-General ups the Conscription age under the Defence Act from 18 to 21.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Can you substantiate this allegation?  Even provide a few examples?
> 
> Why in a discussion like this, do we have to resort to these silly generalities about any particular generation?
> 
> As a baby boomer, and someone with many friends also baby boomers, over many years, none of us have ever used LSD, and none of us want to ban anything.  (Well, except perhaps people who make rabid generalisations.)




My apologies for the generalisation, it annoys me when people stereotype also, i guess this is just a topic i am passionate about, so i overstepped my own line.

I cant provide any specific examples, but i would be very surprised if every lawmaker or politician out there has never tried an illegal substance in their life. Even Obama has admitted that he used to have cocaine occasionally in college.



Julia said:


> On this reasoning, presumably you would also recommend the legalisation of heroin and ice e.g.?   And extend morphine et al onto supermarket shelves along with the paracetomol?
> So we could all happily be addicted on the PBS?
> (I assume you're suggesting these would be TGA approved ?)
> Would you like to see these approved for the PBS and funded by the taxpayer?




Two ways you could do things:
1. Make current illicit drugs non PBS but legalised, same as cigarettes or alcohol. 
2. Have a national database in chemists, with drugs able to be purchased OTC but only a set amount per period per person. However this may encourage experimentation in other drugs when their quota of choice has ran out, so may not be a good idea.

As someone mentioned previously, heroin/morphine is very well understood by the medical and scientfic community, as is MDMA. I cant comment on Ice, as i know nothing about it, but the violence of ice users is a worrying trend, although im not sure how much of that is due to bad cuts, or the active substance itself.

As i said, it should be all or nothing.


----------



## Happy (23 October 2009)

Probably mentioned already:

Why make new age restrictions, uphold the current ones first!


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> As someone mentioned previously, heroin/morphine is very well understood by the medical and scientfic community, as is MDMA. I cant comment on Ice, as i know nothing about it, *but the violence of ice users is a worrying trend*, although im not sure how much of that is due to bad cuts, or the active substance itself.
> 
> As i said, it should be all or nothing.



Emphasis mine. 

So you're saying that it should be all or nothing whilst at the same time noting the issue of violence amongst ice users. I've never, ever seen someone start a fight because they'd smoked a (tobacco) cigarette. Smoking isn't good for you, we all know that, but it doesn't cause people to start throwing punches. 

If I see someone smoking on the street then I can always cross the road or hold my breath as I walk past. A nuisance at most. But how can I identify someone under the influence of ice and avoid becoming a potential victim of violence? I can't find a way to do that other than not being on the street in the first place, a situation that makes ice far worse than cigarettes in that regard.

And I get back to the point I've often made - WHY didn't we have these problems on the same scale 20 years ago? All that has really changed is the loss of respect for the law and the rise of drug use. One of those would seem to be responsible for the situation...


----------



## explod (23 October 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> I'm all for it as long as the Governor-General ups the Conscription age under the Defence Act from 18 to 21.




It should be scrapped altogether.  We are supposed to be equal thinking human beings. (remember the book "animal farm", some animals are more equal than others  My Grandmother, born 1880, lost her first husband in the great war, she often  said, "the youth are but cannon fodder for those behind the guvmint".  (she did not know the word govmint, but you get the drift.)

Rothchilds financed both sides in the first war and they are still behind world finance today.

My recommendation, do a bit of reading and think for yourself


----------



## awg (23 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> If I see someone smoking on the street then I can always cross the road or hold my breath as I walk past. A nuisance at most. But how can I identify someone under the influence of ice and avoid becoming a potential victim of violence? I can't find a way to do that other than not being on the street in the first place, a situation that makes ice far worse than cigarettes in that regard.
> .




They will be the ones muttering to themselves, picking their scabs and with their limbs jerking like clowns.

You definitely should cross the road when you suspect someone is iced!

One of these cranked up fools decided to get into a verbal abuse scene with the family of one of the boys in my sons footy team one fine Saturday morning.

Didnt seem to bother him that the father was a 120kg outlaw motorcycle club official:enforcer: 

( and the mother has the foulest mouth I have ever heard on any woman:chainsaw:


----------



## Julia (24 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Two ways you could do things:
> 1. Make current illicit drugs non PBS but legalised, same as cigarettes or alcohol.
> 2. Have a national database in chemists, with drugs able to be purchased OTC but only a set amount per period per person. However this may encourage experimentation in other drugs when their quota of choice has ran out, so may not be a good idea.



I doubt chemists would be too thrilled with having to supply heroin and morphine addicts.   How would you cope with the fact that these drugs (I don't know about MDMA) produce dependence so rapidly and with it increased tolerance, so that ever increasing quantities are required just merely to stave off withdrawal syndrome?

Are you suggesting that by legalising given quantities per person via pharmacies, this would eliminate the black market?  I doubt it very much.

So effectively all you'd achieve would be to make these drugs legally available to a wider range of people who could just go in to pick up their blood pressure medication, and say "oh and I'll have a couple of grams of heroin while I'm here, thanks".  

Do you think this would benefit our overall community, i.e. to have people who would never seek out an illicit drug, happily purchasing these because they legally can, probably liking the effects, and whacko you have a whole new raft of addicts.


----------



## Tink (24 October 2009)

I agree Julia

We have enough trouble with just alcohol and cigarettes, imagine adding more to the list health wise.

As for everyone trying it Prawn, I agree, thats generalizing. There are plenty that did none of it, be it Baby Boomers or Gen X's or any other Gen's


----------



## Tink (24 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The end result of this is a mentality of opeators doing everything as cheaply as possible and pursuing maximum revenue and to hell with the consequences. Meanwhile the customers also don't give a damn and have little if any respect for anyone or anything. Put those together and it's a virtual guarantee of trouble that should come as no surprise.




I agree with this.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 October 2009)

I certainly dont have all the answers, but i am enjoying this good intellectual debate.



Smurf1976 said:


> And I get back to the point I've often made - WHY didn't we have these problems on the same scale 20 years ago? All that has really changed is the loss of respect for the law and the rise of drug use. One of those would seem to be responsible for the situation...




The point i first made, was:
Is the rise in alcohol/drug users the cause or effect of other societal problems. The fact that most young men have no outlet for their natural aggression due to being in a nanny state plays a big part imo (without eny evidence, just a thought)



Julia said:


> Do you think this would benefit our overall community, i.e. to have people who would never seek out an illicit drug, happily purchasing these because they legally can, probably liking the effects, and whacko you have a whole new raft of addicts.




I think if it was to be done, then the price would need to include taxes to cover the negatives that comes with it, same as with grog and smokes. Yes if it was legalised there would be those who become addicted (however nicotine is still one of the most addictive substances on Earth), and some who have mental problems (same as alcoholics), but there would also be benefits of those people who like to go out occasionally and do something different, dont have to worry about bad cuts, dont have to worry about dodgy dealers, and dont have to worry about losing their job (i know a huge amount of people in respected positions that take illegal substances)


----------



## Julia (24 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> I certainly dont have all the answers, but i am enjoying this good intellectual debate.



Well, I doubt that it will ever be anything more than a pointless debate, Prawn.  No government is ever going to find legalising drugs like heroin and cocaine politically or sociologically acceptable.  


> The point i first made, was:
> Is the rise in alcohol/drug users the cause or effect of other societal problems. The fact that most young men have no outlet for their natural aggression due to being in a nanny state plays a big part imo (without eny evidence, just a thought)



It's a reasonable question, but what about engaging in sport, getting into marathon running, mountaineering, or whatever as an outlet for excess energy.   I also hate the nanny state, but don't really think we can blame this for drug abuse.



> I think if it was to be done, then the price would need to include taxes to cover the negatives that comes with it, same as with grog and smokes.



That doesn't solve the problem of lack of capacity within the health system which is already failing.
And it doesn't take account of the moral question of creating a whole new bunch of addicts.

Prawn, I wonder if you've ever actually known someone who is addicted to opiates?  The utter degradation and misery of the dominance in that person's life of the craving for the drug, to the extent that all other aspects of existence are ignored.

You speak blithely of the greatest problems being 'bad cuts' and 'dodgy dealers'.   I can't imagine that you've ever seen an addict desperately trying to get through yet another attempt at withdrawal of an opiate, the physiological and psychological horror of it.  If you had, you wouldn't be suggesting for a millisecond that these drugs should be made more available to more people.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 October 2009)

You can`t put an old shoulder on young heads.


----------



## Calliope (24 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> ... (i know a huge amount of people in respected positions that take illegal substances)




The drug habits of a  "huge amount of people in respected positions" in the USA help fuel the Mexican drug wars where murderous drug cabals are killing each other and anyone who gets in their way. Their market is the USA, and their violence spills across the borders.


----------



## prawn_86 (24 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Prawn, I wonder if you've ever actually known someone who is addicted to opiates?  The utter degradation and misery of the dominance in that person's life of the craving for the drug, to the extent that all other aspects of existence are ignored.




Unfortunately yes, i directly know both a morphine addict and an alcoholic. To be honest there is very little difference between the 2, and both substances have destroyed each seperate life (and damaged countless others around it).

I agree that nothing will ever come of it, but i think the debate is important, so long as people realise that we have legalised 2 of the most dangerous drugs known to man (alchohol and tobacco/nicotine) and yet others are instantly canned as being heinous just mentioning them simply because they are illegal.


----------



## GumbyLearner (24 October 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Unfortunately yes, i directly know both a morphine addict and an alcoholic. To be honest there is very little difference between the 2, and both substances have destroyed each seperate life (and damaged countless others around it).
> 
> I agree that nothing will ever come of it, but i think the debate is important, so long as people realise that we have legalised 2 of the most dangerous drugs known to man (alchohol and tobacco/nicotine) and yet others are instantly canned as being heinous just mentioning them simply because they are illegal.




Have you known anyone personally who died from a heroin overdose prawn?


----------



## prawn_86 (25 October 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Have you known anyone personally who died from a heroin overdose prawn?




I dont see what this has to do with the discussion, but no thankfully.


----------



## Ageo (25 October 2009)

I reckon fine cigars and congnac should be encouraged in school so at least kids understand quality vs rubbish when having a good time.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2009)

Ageo said:


> I reckon fine cigars and congnac should be encouraged in school so at least kids understand quality vs rubbish when having a good time.




Good spelling should also be encouraged at school.


----------

