Tobacco & Alcohol control

[Aceman]

So, what you're saying is that you're trying to regulate how many drinks or smokes I can have in a given day??? Who in the Hell is anybody to regulate that! Who's right is it to tell an alcoholic that they can't drink? These are personal decisions and not government decisions. Hey, lets regulate how many times you can have sex in a day. Let's regulate how many miles you can drive your car in a day. How many minutes you can talk on your phone!

You say that it could curb drunk driving by limiting the amount they can drink in a day and then you say that homebrewers don't need to be regulated anymore than they are right now. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here!

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< So, what you're saying is that you're trying to regulate how many drinks or smokes I can have in a given day??? Who in the Hell is anybody to regulate that! Who's right is it to tell an alcoholic that they can't drink? These are personal decisions and not government decisions. Hey, lets regulate how many times you can have sex in a day. Let's regulate how many miles you can drive your car in a day. How many minutes you can talk on your phone! >>



Ahem:
P.S. Please read my posts in their entirety before responding. Thanks.



<< You say that it could curb drunk driving by limiting the amount they can drink in a day and then you say that homebrewers don't need to be regulated anymore than they are right now. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here! >>



I think home brews contribute only a tiny fraction to the number of drunk drivers out there.
Again, I'm also just tossing around ideas here, it's not like I'm about to enact some legislation.

 

[Jzero]

<< So, what you're saying is that you're trying to regulate how many drinks or smokes I can have in a given day??? Who in the Hell is anybody to regulate tha! >>


I think you missed something. The stipulation is that the limits are self-imposed.
In other words, if I want to quit drinking, I can go and set my booze limit to zero. Because of the waiting period, if I want to go on a binge within the next month or so, I can't because I decided to quit drinking and if go to up my limit the next day, it won't take effect until after the waiting period.
He's suggesting a way to help people follow-through with their own moderation goals and curb underage drinking, not a government control on how much you drink.

I don't agree with it because I don't think the government should have to help lushes out of their holes.....I honestly think the "forbidden fruit" status given to booze and cigs in America is half the problem, and this would carry on the problem.

 

[Aceman]

Sir Fredrick, I did read your entire post. I can go months without having one drink and then decide to get sh!tfaced one night. Oops, can't now because I didn't predict my mood 3 weeks in advance. Some smoke shop is having a firesale on a carton of cigarettes on my brand. Oops, can't get it because I don't have enough credits on my card. Why do you want the government to oversee such a thing????????????????? Geezus, the U.S. government could easily fvck up a wet dream!

Homebrewing will skyrocket with this proposal and you'll have numerous crazy idiots trying to boost that alcohol in the beer and creating stills!

 

[Jzero]

<< I can go months without having one drink and then decide to get sh!tfaced one night. >>


If you don't use your points you don't lose them.
If you give yourself a limit of a million drinks a day and drink one day out of the year, you still get to have a million drinks that day. If you decide to drink 2 days out of the year, you STILL get a million drinks both days.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Next thing you know when you apply for a job at a "non-smoking" company, they're looking up your "Vice Card" # and they see you don't have a zero-limit on cigs and they show you the door....

I must admit I agree. Not the nonsmoking company per se but companies looking to limit expensive employees (missed work due to illness and costly healthcare). I think your solution, Sir Fredrick, is legit. Whatever agency rules the card (I would vote for FDA) CANNOT share that information with any other government agency. Admittedly, FDA Commissioner was once an aspiration . . . and I'm probably the naysayers worst enemy; nonsmoking, teetotaling physician (to be).

Cigarettes are a drug delivery device; so it would have to work at a safe level to be "approved" for use. There is NO certifiably safe level of cigarette consumption. Alcohol presents a different conundrum. It can be consumed regularly, in moderation without significant health consequences but acute intoxication and chronic abuse occur at readily identifiable levels of consumption.

Allow consumers to choose their levels but FDA sets relative maximums. Sir Fredrick's guidelines on ability to change limits seems good but once you exceed FDA limits the waiting period doubles and increment is reduced by half.

 

[jitspoe]

Interesting idea in theory, but it would fail horribly in practice. It's sad that there are so many people not intelligent enough to take care of their bodies that an idea such as this should even be suggested...

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< I don't agree with it because I don't think the government should have to help lushes out of their holes.....I honestly think the "forbidden fruit" status given to booze and cigs in America is half the problem, and this would carry on the problem. >>



Believe it or not, I agree, to some extent. But let's face it, there's no way they will lose that status any time soon.
The reason that these "vices" are being singled out (by me anyway) is that they can have a direct effect on other people.

Also, something that should be considered is that a system like this may aide in the legalization of Marijuana, because there would be a relatively easy way to regulate it (though it would most assuredly be more tightly controlled/limited than alcohol and cigs). That would at least put some dealers out of business and reduce crime.

Note that I'm not a big proponent of legalization, however. I don't smoke or do drugs.

 

[amnesiac]

Jsut wanted to apologize for the (now deleted) harsh words earlier. I don't like people touching my alcohol, that's all.

 

[Ciber]

if anything what we need is a blood alcohol level testing thing put on the steering wheel of every new car. this thing will check your alcohol vol every second and if it detects whatever is the illegal vol in your state it will turn off the engine, this will prevent someone from holding the steering wheel so you can start the car or whatever. seems like a good solution for the drunk drivers. as for people drinking or smoking, well if they are not close friends or family i dont really care. if you wish to waste your money and slowly kill yourself that is fine with me, hell go ahead and jump off buildings and kill yourselves for all i care.

 

[CrazyRyan]

Hey you know what else we can do it's great put tracking devices in newborns so everyone can be tracked by the goverment. And have cameras and microphones in our houses. And you know that thing called the constitution it would be much more better if we got rid of it. So great idea huh

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There's way too many things wrong with this model.
1. It would be too expensive to implement
2. Getting all alcohol retailers to subscribe to this would be nearly impossible.
3. Tremendous resistance from alcohol / tobacco industry

1) Do you have ANY idea how much money we spend for alcohol detox? Not to mention treatment of DTs, alcoholic withdrawal seizures, alcohol encephalopathy/dementia Wernicke-Korsakoff.

Even worse with the relative prevalence of alcoholics with acute withdrawal issues clogging our emergency rooms and psych wards other patients with equally if not more more serious nonvolitional conditions get delayed care. I admitted a woman on SAT who had more than 40 ED admissions and had been to alcohol detox FIVE times. I hope she succeeds this time but what do you think happened to the 2 suicide attempts and acute psychotic that came in afterwards? Each had to transferred b/c we were full. Know what it takes to get someone into the state mental hospital? They have to be declined from 3 separate facilities. How much do you think that costs in manpower and physical resources?

2) ABC store is already a semi-government sham, I mean operation. As for the others, if following our rules are too much trouble I guess you don't like having a liquor license we can relieve anyone if they feel overwelmed by the responsibility.

3) Are you serious? Who cares what the alcohol and tobacco industries think? If they were good corporate citizens instead of taking every opportunity to peddle their wares to pubescents and habitual users we wouldn't have to do this at all!

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< if anything what we need is a blood alcohol level testing thing put on the steering wheel of every new car. this thing will check your alcohol vol every second and if it detects whatever is the illegal vol in your state it will turn off the engine, this will prevent someone from holding the steering wheel so you can start the car or whatever. seems like a good solution for the drunk drivers. as for people drinking or smoking, well if they are not close friends or family i dont really care. if you wish to waste your money and slowly kill yourself that is fine with me, hell go ahead and jump off buildings and kill yourselves for all i care. >>



If there were a way to do that (without having your finger pricked every 30 seconds), I'd support it under the circumstance that it be an addon required only for ppl with a record for drunk driving.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Transcutaneous optical blood glucose sensor will be on the market this year for diabetics . . . no more finger prick.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< Hey you know what else we can do it's great put tracking devices in newborns so everyone can be tracked by the goverment. And have cameras and microphones in our houses. And you know that thing called the constitution it would be much more better if we got rid of it. So great idea huh

>>



Sarcasm and absurdity do not good a good argument make.

 

[Amused]

Gee, fascism is alive and well, isn't it? Only now, it's "for your own good."

Orwell was almost right. Only it's not "Big Brother" we have to look out for, it's "Big Mother."

No thanks. I don't need a government to take care of my body.

 

[jjones]

Did you think this idea up while taking a sh!t? You should have flushed it with your brains and the rest of the crap down the toilet.

 

[BooneRebel]

For everyone that thinks that alcohol controls would lead to home stills, do you think that speed limits cause speeding?

 

[royaldank]

<< Also, something that should be considered is that a system like this may aide in the legalization of Marijuana, because there would be a relatively easy way to regulate it (though it would most assuredly be more tightly controlled/limited than alcohol and cigs). That would at least put some dealers out of business and reduce crime.

Note that I'm not a big proponent of legalization, however. I don't smoke or do drugs. >>



Now, why in the world would marijuana be more regulated than alcohol? The same, sure, but more? Without turning this into a legalization issue, I just wanted to note that I'll take my chances any day of the week with a highway full of stoned drivers than a highway full of drunks.

But, that isn't really the issue here. It's a somewhat interesting idea, but you are really just coming up with a way for the government to baby sit us. You have mentioned it's more of a personal way to regulate your drinking or for those that want to quit. Seriously, I don't want my tax money going to into something like this. If someone can't quit on their own, I'm seriously doubting that this card would help them. That same person would be at home setting their limit and their own personal conversation would go something like this, "Well, I'd like to slow down my drinking, but what if something comes up? I mean, I might go to have drinks one night after work which wouldn't be bad. I'll just set it to a hundred but I'll try and keep my drinks down."

I mean, these cards aren't adding anything to the equation of someone trying to quit. And if they want to drink, they will drink. Either by stealing the booze, a card, or have their buddy get it for them. Sure, the card has a picture on it, but I think we know picture ids aren't fool proof.

The only way you could regulate it is make alcohol and cigarettes a perscribed drug. You have to elimate the easy accessability. But, once you do that, street prices soar and you start having a whole new street scene where dealers are slinging a Coors Light instead of crack.

The best thing the country can do it educate people and try to change lifestyles. I mean, we all know obesity is running rampant in America as well as drunk driving. But, our current lifestyle is built around eating and drinking. You win an award or want to celebrate, odds are you are going to decide to go out for dinner or a drink. You talk to an old buddy you haven't seen in years and decide to get together. Odds are one of the first things you consider is eating dinner somewhere or getting drinks. You'd have to make an effort to change these sorts of things. How do you do that? I'm not sure but I've made efforts in my life to change these habits. People are just too comfortable getting drunk and pigging out. A card with self imposed limits would be about as useful as a hand written list saying "drink only 1 beer tonight" stuffed way down in your back pocket.

Another thing that would help is if you stopped spending drug prevention money on stupid tv commercials and manadatory sentencing and started building public transportation. The gov't has some blame here because public transportation in most of the nation is non existant or insufficent. In London, for example, people go the pubs immediately after work for a couple points. In the city, not too many people are driving home because of the tube and night buses. It's obsurd to think we can subways in every city, but bus routes would be possible. But, the more rural the community, the harder buses are. But, think how much money we spend on jails and anti-drug campaigns. Spend some of that on some buses to make streets safer.

 

[Amused]

<< For everyone that thinks that alcohol controls would lead to home stills, do you think that speed limits cause speeding? >>



Have you read about Prohibition? All banning alcohol did was create a huge and dangerous underground market for booze, and make a LOT of money for organized crime. It had little to no effect on the rate of alcohol use, or abuse.

And guess what? A ban would do the same for tobacco, and has done the same for narcotics. Severely limit these to where people cannot get them when they want them, and you'll see the same effect. Dry counties still exist in the US, and people simply drive to a wet county, stock up, and resell it to their friends.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<<

<< Also, something that should be considered is that a system like this may aide in the legalization of Marijuana, because there would be a relatively easy way to regulate it (though it would most assuredly be more tightly controlled/limited than alcohol and cigs). That would at least put some dealers out of business and reduce crime.

Note that I'm not a big proponent of legalization, however. I don't smoke or do drugs. >>



Now, why in the world would marijuana be more regulated than alcohol? The same, sure, but more? Without turning this into a legalization issue, I just wanted to note that I'll take my chances any day of the week with a highway full of stoned drivers than a highway full of drunks. >>



Because it's far less accepted. You'll have no chance of getting the general public (including religious groups) to agree to allow unregulated access to marijuana.



<< But, that isn't really the issue here. It's a somewhat interesting idea, but you are really just coming up with a way for the government to baby sit us. You have mentioned it's more of a personal way to regulate your drinking or for those that want to quit. Seriously, I don't want my tax money going to into something like this. If someone can't quit on their own, I'm seriously doubting that this card would help them. >>



It seems like it would be a better use of tobacco settlement dollars than the stupid ineffective advertising that it's funding now. If it required additional tax funding, it would come from the heavy taxes on tobacco and alcohol - some of that money ought to go towards something alcohol & tobacco related, shouldn't it?



<< That same person would be at home setting their limit and their own personal conversation would go something like this, "Well, I'd like to slow down my drinking, but what if something comes up? I mean, I might go to have drinks one night after work which wouldn't be bad. I'll just set it to a hundred but I'll try and keep my drinks down." >>



If a person has joined AA and really wants to stop drinking, they'll set their limit to 0. Sure, there will be some who just aren't serious about it, but this would help those who recognize that it's nearly impossible for them to quit on their own, but would like to get over their addiction.



<< I mean, these cards aren't adding anything to the equation of someone trying to quit. And if they want to drink, they will drink. Either by stealing the booze, a card, or have their buddy get it for them. >>



It adds a level of difficulty to acquiring alcohol for those with a problem. Right now it's extremely easy to get alcohol or tobacco even if you're trying to quit. This makes it very tempting and easy to slip up. I doubt you're gonna see a recovering alcoholic hold up a liquor store because he set his card to not allow him to purchase alcohol.



<< Sure, the card has a picture on it, but I think we know picture ids aren't fool proof. >>



You are correct, but considering that you'd now need two picture IDs (cause you still have a drivers license), one of which is actually swiped through a card reader and verified as valid, it's that much harder to fake.



<< The only way you could regulate it is make alcohol and cigarettes a perscribed drug. You have to elimate the easy accessability. But, once you do that, street prices soar and you start having a whole new street scene where dealers are slinging a Coors Light instead of crack. >>



My proposal is an alternative to making them prescribed. Let's face it, there aren't many doctors who will prescribe them, and I certainly object to having alcohol prescribed. I cook with red and white wines, and I'm not about to consult my doctor before I can buy some to make pork chops.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< Have you read about Prohibition? All banning alcohol did was create a huge and dangerous underground market for booze, and make a LOT of money for organized crime. It had little to no effect on the rate of alcohol use, or abuse.

And guess what? A ban would do the same for tobacco, and has done the same for narcotics. Severely limit these to where people cannot get them when they want them, and you'll see the same effect. Dry counties still exist in the US, and people simply drive to a wet county, stock up, and resell it to their friends. >>



This is exactly why I'm NOT proposing any sort of ban. Just a slightly higher level of control.
It is undeniable that tobacco and alcohol pose serious public health risks. Eventually, something WILL be done about this. The question is what will that be - I wrote my proposal as an alternative to prescriptions, an outright ban, or even heavier taxes on these products.
Many people who start smoking do so well before they are of age 18. Once you start, it's extremely difficult to stop - supposedly it's easier to quit heroin than it is to quit smoking.
If tobacco and alcohol companies wish to continue selling products which are known to have addictive qualities while also being a public health hazard, they have to take some level of responsibility, as do the people who are consuming these products.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Have you read about Prohibition? All banning alcohol did was create a huge and dangerous underground market for booze, and make a LOT of money for organized crime. It had little to no effect on the rate of alcohol use, or abuse.

And guess what? A ban would do the same for tobacco, and has done the same for narcotics. Severely limit these to where people cannot get them when they want them, and you'll see the same effect. Dry counties still exist in the US, and people simply drive to a wet county, stock up, and resell it to their friends. >>



This is exactly why I'm NOT proposing any sort of ban. Just a slightly higher level of control.
It is undeniable that tobacco and alcohol pose serious public health risks. Eventually, something WILL be done about this. The question is what will that be - I wrote my proposal as an alternative to prescriptions, an outright ban, or even heavier taxes on these products.
Many people who start smoking do so well before they are of age 18. Once you start, it's extremely difficult to stop - supposedly it's easier to quit heroin than it is to quit smoking.
If tobacco and alcohol companies wish to continue selling products which are known to have addictive qualities while also being a public health hazard, they have to take some level of responsibility, as do the people who are consuming these products. >>



The problem is, the tighter the government control, the more rampant the abuse and underground markets will become. There is a huge and dangerous underground markets for legal, but controled substances as it is.

NOTHING need be done about tobacco and alcohol beyond effective education campaigns and private treatment programs.

As for companies taking "responsibility" for people's addictions and irresponibility --- bullsh!t.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

For those that feel such a system (where you can set your own limits) would be infringing on your freedoms, remember that all laws restrict your freedom in some way or another.
Should heroin and crack also be legalized? By restricting their sale, we are infringing on your freedom to use them.
Should you need a license to drive your car? We are infringing on your freedom to travel freely, even violating your constitutional rights on this one.
Should there be building codes and regulations? We are restricting your freedom to build any old structure you'd like - it must be sound, stable, and habitable.
Should airport security be mandatory? We are restricting yoru freedom to fly, forcing you to jump through extra hoops and deal with a little extra hasstle, all in the name of safety.

AmusedOne, I know that you have libertarian tendencies, so I expect that you're opposed to just about all the laws I mentioned, but most people would agree that they are necessary in order for our society to function as well (and safely) as it does.

 

[royaldank]

<< If a person has joined AA and really wants to stop drinking, they'll set their limit to 0. Sure, there will be some who just aren't serious about it, but this would help those who recognize that it's nearly impossible for them to quit on their own, but would like to get over their addiction. >>



I understand that but if that person wants a drink they will get it. Although it could force some to actually quit, I doubt it. It's kind of like a druggie that runs out of money and still has to get drugs. I know this is the extreme case, but we are talking about that cannot quit by themselves...people that have serious problems, not someone who drinks too much on a Tuesday and gets to work 15 minutes late. And, if they are going to set their limit to zero, why have a card? Throw the card away if you are trying to quit.



<< It adds a level of difficulty to acquiring alcohol for those with a problem. Right now it's extremely easy to get alcohol or tobacco even if you're trying to quit. This makes it very tempting and easy to slip up. I doubt you're gonna see a recovering alcoholic hold up a liquor store because he set his card to not allow him to purchase alcohol. >>



I'll agree with that, but we as a society want it this way. We want it so that it's easy to get. The majority is supposed to rule here, so why would we want to cater to a few people that can't control their drinking. You mentioned a drunk holding up a liquor store...maybe that is far fetched, but I can see lots of people running in a 7-11 and grabbing a six'er and running out.



<< You are correct, but considering that you'd now need two picture IDs (cause you still have a drivers license), one of which is actually swiped through a card reader and verified as valid, it's that much harder to fake. >>



People, customer and retailer, aren't going to want to go through the hassle of swiping two cards. Why two cards? For double identification? Why not incorporate your drink passes into your drivers license.




<< My proposal is an alternative to making them prescribed. Let's face it, there aren't many doctors who will prescribe them, and I certainly object to having alcohol prescribed. I cook with red and white wines, and I'm not about to consult my doctor before I can buy some to make pork chops. >>



The same way you say you don't want to consult your doctor is the same way people say we don't want to carry a stupid card.

I think the biggest problem is you singled out alcohol and cigarettes as the only harmful thing that should be regulated like this. People have allready mentioned foods. But, who decides which foods? You are talking about putting massive restrictions on something that is legal, which is very hard to do.