Alcohol is just a chemical, there is no relationship between alcohol and harm Given that its naturally in the bloodstream. There is however a relationship between certain individuals taking alcohol and harm.
Addiction affects a minority, if anything the minority should be banned from alcohol, not alcohol itself.
Aside from addiction, most of the other problems occur from people not knowing or caring where their limits are. A culture of over drinking being cool is partly to blame.
Existing rules need to be enforced and make those who cause damage pay restitution. Police, ambulance and hospital costs need to be reimbursed. A ban for everyone is unfair.
People are given pity, understanding & handouts rather than social stigma & ostracization. It hasn't worked.
Dealing with the effects of excessive drinking without dealing with the cause is pointless. Why do these people think it is acceptable to behave disgracefully and put themselves and others at risk? Teach some self esteem, encourage self reliance and respect
The strongest argument is that banning has been tried before and it did not work. This was called Prohibition.
The logic behind allowing alcohol purchase and consumption legal is not replicated across other ingestible substances.
It should be.
Will alcohol be banned in government buildings where politicians go.
Will the government treat binge smoking and eating the same way?
We take away driving licenses from reckless drivers, why not try something similar with reckless drinkers?
Politicians love to have pictures touring brewery's, but then try and ban alcohol.
Banning is reverse democracy. The majority pay for the minority who are irresponsible.
Why can't we have the most direct democracy, people deciding for themselves when they can drink.
A large reason people want to ban alcohol, is that they think they want the choices they make to be taken by others.
Ignorance of politicians make them think a ban will work.
So the Royal college of Physicians blames the supermarkets for the 200% rise in liver disease- apparently discount booze is the culprit. What a nanny state cop-out. Cheap supermarket lager or not, can the blame really rest with anyone but the fools who drink too much of it?
A premises licence should be removed if they serve someone who should not drink anymore.
A lack of parental guidance and education is responsible for those under 18 who binge drink. Get these youngsters sorted out then by the time they are 18.
If somebody else likes to binge drink should you pay more for your alcohol?
Drunken behaviour is the responsibility of one person and it is easy to prove their guilt so make them pay. Lock them up for their own safety and make them pay the bill for the police, NHS and overnight stay. Three strikes and they have to go into rehab.
Children should be brought up in the continental fashion, where social drinking is part of the norm and permitted from 14.
How about a licence to drink, like a car licence.
Change the duty on alcohol so that weak drinks are cheap while stronger the drink the more it is going to cost, drinkers will then buy drinks with less alcohol in them.