Why is alcohol legal?

[endlesseulogy]

This is a question that has been bothering me forever and i just want some ideas and feedback.. if alcohol is the deadliest drug why is it legal?
There was a very good report in the herald sun yesterday about alcohol it gave some facts.. 3500 Australians died from alcohol related misuse last year.

50% of assults fueled by alcohol
44% of injuries
34% of falls and drowing
30% of car accidents
23% liver cirrhosis
18-25% MENTAL HEALH DISORDERS
16% child abuse cases
12% of suicides
11% cardiovasular disease
10% of industrial machine accidents

Now this is where it gets weird. u remember those few people that got taken to hospital at two tribes in relation to GHB? The press and public had a field day AND THEY DIDNT EVEN DIE! Yet you look at these figures which also state that 10 people per day in australia die of alcohol related death, GHB starts too look like small fry, so does cannabis, MDMA, LSD, Psilcybin, K etc etc... compare a drunk person to someone that is stonned. i think we all know the difference.. angry drunks are fuckin annoying. YET WHY IS ALCOHOL LEGAL? Im not saying ban alcohol.. quite the opposite.. im just asking the question and exposing the hipocracy in the system.. I think we have to start with the legalisation of pot.. which by the isnt toxic AT ALL...

 

[Sllip]

Or a better question would be if alcohol was a new drug do you really think it would be legal? You would have all these ravers running around with little bottles of coloured liquid which they take shots out of every few hours. Only instead of tasting like crap, it would burn like a bitch! And it would be deemed uncool and stupid to A-out.

But nevertheless, prohibition was tried and failed miserably. But for some reason they seem to think that prohibition on other drugs (MDMA, meth, etc) is succesful.

 

[Cactii]

U cant tax illegal drugs 200% +GST

 

[eze451]

alcohol is nice and taxable...... i mean who is gonna cook up alcohol in their backyard for all that trouble when u can go down to the store

drugs like pills and meth on the other hand, even if they were available legally, ppl would still be cooking them up in their backyards or watever, because of the mass quantities u can get with a relatively small setup... if u wanted to do the same for alcohol, u would need bathtub upon bathtub.... think beer baron episode in the simpsons

government decisions are based on 2 things... and they arent what the voters want, and what is right..... they are based on money, and re-election....

 

[Bent]

10 people per day in australia die of alcohol related death, GHB starts too look like small fry

Not to take away from your valid point, but don't forget there's a hell of a lot more people drinking alcohol than there are drinking G.

But still I believe that if someone just invented alcohol a few years ago, it would be banned by now.

 

[endlesseulogy]

so maybe because it has been so ingrained into our culture for 1000's of years? i say change the damn culture culture or not however.. if alcohol was that dangerous surely the government would put safety before culture?

 

[apollo]

^^ Don't you like our culture the way it is? As for the government putting safety first... Look at tobacco for fucks sake!

Yet you look at these figures which also state that 10 people per day in australia die of alcohol related death, GHB starts too look like small fry, so does cannabis, MDMA, LSD, Psilcybin, K etc etc...

You need to look at per capita measurement before a comparison is valid. Yes, alcohol causes more problems, but that's partially because a shitload more people drink alcohol, and the more something is happening, the higher the odds of adverse circumstance.
An analogy would be people going swimming. 100 people go swimming in Australia, they're all ok. But 100 000 people go swimming in New Zealand, and a few drown. That doesn't mean swimming in Australia is safer, because you need to know what'd happen if 100 000 people swum in Australia. I hope that makes sense

This might be the case with GHB. If it was used by people as much as alcohol, how do we know it wouldn't be just as bad? (I'm not saying it would be, just that numerical comparisons don't work well unless we have a per capita, or per user, measurement)

Alcohol is ingrained in western society. It's a part of western society that a lot of people will not part with. Imagine if you threatened to ban alcohol... It wouldn't be like a protest against a war in Iraq, because you would attract more than just intellectuals, pacifists and leftys... You'd drag out everyone who drinks alcohol!

It's also a part of our culture - wine tasting + dining? The all too Aussie sausage on the BBQ + a beer?

People would spew about taking away from our culture, cutting jobs and infringing on civil liberties. If you look back to the USA, just after WW1 they gave prohibition a go. It got nowhere. Granted, they implimented a policy which was so stupid you'd wonder if they were ever serious about it (illegal to manufacture + sell + posess, but not illegal to consume), but even the government statistics reflect the facts that; drink driving increased, incidents of 'drunkeness in public' increased, and a huge black market for bootlegging opened up, creating a world of corrupt police and government officials. Good old Al Capone did his thing by getting the Bugs Moran gang tommy gunned, etc.

My point? Prohibition didn't just fail - it made society less safe, and increased alcohol abuse.

There is also the issue of business and $$$. We all saw the "please re-elect Johnny" budget yesterday... A lot of the money they spent will have come from alcohol related transactions. Think about it - they're raking it in off alcohol;

- GST
- income tax from all the distillery workers, transport drivers and sales - people who work in the industry
- tariffs from imported alcohol
- alcohol licences for premises wishing to serve it

As well as giving them revenue, it's also a huge part of our economy - it stimulates activity in all sorts of industries - agriculture (to make fermentable material) construction (to build fermentating/distilling plants, bars, clubs, etc), science (refining fermentating, distillation, etc), transport (getting the stuff around). When you think about it, alcohol provides government revenue and economic stimulation that goes far beyond the sale of a beer. Think about all the tax and so forth that it's generating. Also, think about the big influential business men who donate money to the political parties on frequent occasion, and what they might do if their investment in grapes for wine, or their friends investment in a distillery is challenged by a governmental proposition to ban alcohol.

It's also worth noting that GHB withdrawal (from a real addiction) is fucking nasty - far worse than what alcoholics go through, that's for sure.

Anyway, a bit of a rant, but food for thought I'm sure

 

[endlesseulogy]

apollo.. you are right in what you are saying about the fact that more people drink alcohol.. but i doubt if GHB would become legal for example, more people wouldnt start taking it.. the users would remail users and the non-users would stay clear of it... why? because it is dangerous. the same trend dosnt seem to apply with alcohol however

 

[apollo]

So you're saying if GHB became legal (and thus available over the counter), you don't think more people would start taking it? I think use would skyrocket personally. I'm not saying there'd be as many people taking GHB as currently do ethanol, but jesus - look at the interest in legal highs, just because they're legal. Or the interest in absinthe once people heard it was legal. Legality, I think, would stimulate interest and thus use.

You can't know if the same trend would apply to alcohol or not, because alcohol is in such a vastly different position to GHB. Alcohol has been a part of Australian society since day 1. The ramifications of that warp any prediction of what would happen to a new but relatively unheard of and similar chemical.

 

[Witch Doctor]

i think if GHB became legal AND regulated, usage would prolly go up, but i think there will be less incidents (per capita).

just think about it, buying a bottle of G, knowing exactly how much is in the bottle, what concerntration, advice about dosage and redosage, what not to mix it with.. etc etc.. is alot safer than getting a bottle of liquid that u are told is G and nothing more...

and people say alcohol is legal because u can tax it.. but if other drugs (MDMA / K / meth) were legal AND regulated, it could be taxed too.

 

[Sllip]

i mean who is gonna cook up alcohol in their backyard for all that trouble when u can go down to the store

What about home brew?

Oh and Once you start making things legal but regulated then in starts to become quasi-legal, ala Valium and the like. This still opens doors for abuse.

 

[Witch Doctor]

^^ yes true, some ppl may still abuse it, but it will cut out alot of ppl accidently harming themselves by taking unknown substances.

 

[GillyWin]

How many politicians drink?

 

[Witch Doctor]

enough for them to get all uptight when the greens suggested they not be allowed to drink on the job

 

[S|LENCE]

i think if GHB became legal AND regulated, usage would prolly go up, but i think there will be less incidents (per capita).

just think about it, buying a bottle of G, knowing exactly how much is in the bottle, what concerntration, advice about dosage and redosage, what not to mix it with.. etc etc.. is alot safer than getting a bottle of liquid that u are told is G and nothing more...

and people say alcohol is legal because u can tax it.. but if other drugs (MDMA / K / meth) were legal AND regulated, it could be taxed too.

Not so simple.

As i said in my email to Neil Mitchell, alcohol and tobacco are known to cause problems - tobacco has no health benefits whatsoever.. it kills you plain and simple - yet they have been around since long before this country was founded.
This gave the government the oppertunity to jump on it, enforce quality controls and tax the shit out of it.

With MDMA for example, this wont be so easy to do. While research is still inconclusive as to wether or not MDMA poses a significant health risk as opposed to other substances already legal i agree that MDMA should still remain illegal, although the point that while tobacco kills you yet it is available for purchase to those over the age of 18 is a valid argument.

Even if it proves that MDMA poses no inherent health risks, i still highly doubt it would be legalised - the best possible scenario would be decriminalisation.

The problem is that the black market for MDMA was long established when the government found out about its use as a recreational drug. This makes it too difficult to release a controlled, and subsequently taxable product in the same manner as they have with alcohol and tobacco products.

The black market will still exist as it would no doubt be considerably cheaper than the government product, and it has been used with relatively few problems for years...

If the tables were reversed and MDMA was the older substance and alcohol was new with an established black market and user base, i'm sure it would face exactly the same problems that MDMA faces today.

I would like to see the government charged with trafficking a drug of dependence in regard to tobacco products... i'm a smoker, i hate the fucking things, yet i am addicted... something to think about.

[/rant]

A

 

[Witch Doctor]

if u could buy MDMA tablets in bottle-o's (to ppl over 18 of cos), why would a black market exist?

for 1 precussors to make MDMA are obtained on the blackmarket, which means that they are more than likely way over priced. and the fact that alot of the price we pay for our pills is actually for the risk importers / dristributors take.

and i for 1 would rather buy a pill that i know exactly what is in it.. and know it was made in a real lab, than something made in a make shift lab, and have no idea what really is in it..

 

[S|LENCE]

easy.. the risk money would no doubt be substituted for government taxes, lab costs, quality controls etc. it would also mean that the government could choose the dosage as they see fit.
You might be getting pure MDMA, but only 80mg meaning more pills have to be purchased for the same effect as a good street pill. The government could charge whatever they like for whatever dosage they choose, and people would buy it because it is "pure mdma"

theres too many variables to make it viable imo.

A

 

[BlazinMarty]

if they were to legalize, surely they would want people to buy off them, so making prices atleast 40% lower than street prices and you've won, dealers are out, the government gets their money and everyones happy.

 

[nickthecheese]

Why wouldn't it be? it's only been around for 200+ years, probably even longer. Conservatives like to keep things the way they are. unfortunately, they get all the power and the rest of us have to suffer...

Personally, I don't think ghb will ever make it onto the market. the very steep dosage response curves and fact that if you mix it with alcohol it can be pretty much lights out - makes it far too dangerous a drug for the masses. I personally know more than a few people who would be dead if it was legal, and simply because of their own stupidity and machismo....

 

[S|LENCE]

if they were to legalize, surely they would want people to buy off them, so making prices atleast 40% lower than street prices and you've won, dealers are out, the government gets their money and everyones happy.

i think they would be more likely to play the whole "well at least you know what you're getting" card... the media would tell them to.

who can really speculate though... i just doubt they will ever make it legal.

anyone know why it is illegal though?? reasoning for making it illegal?

A