Alcohol drinking

So you've all probably heard about the alcopop tax thing being rejected (I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of it). Here's one article:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/16-billion-hole-after-alcopop-tax-fizzles-20090318-926j.html

My general question was more about alcohol and the consumption of alcohol in general. Do people think that there's a problem with the general consumption of alcohol, mainly in youngsters, but also in the rest of the population? Do teenagers drink more now than teenagers used to? Is it only a minority and therefore not a problem? Or not? Will taxing drinks have any effect?

Alcohol consumption is, in itself, quite an interesting activity, so any comments about that can be added as well. Or any other alcohol related things.

Just remember kiddies, it's ok to binge drink as long as it's beer, wine or straight spirits. Your government says so.



I may add more later.

Which also kinda raises another question: Is there something wrong with the idea of 'alcopop' drinks i.e. the adding of strong alcohol to soft drinks in pre-mixed packages, and, let's face it, targeting the younger generation? Or is it no different than selling alcohol in general?

People of all ages buy pre-mixed spirits (don't use 'alcopop', that word is just part of the Labor propaganda).
Some 18yr olds like beer, some like Vodka Cruisers. I don't think the ones who like cruisers should be taxed more simply because their tastes are different.
When they first brought the tax in the government pointed out that you could get ~12 standard drinks for $13 by buying a 6-pack of Woodstock. What they didn't mention was that for the same price you get 40+ standard drinks from goon and that's what the kiddies drink. Someone who is 18 comes in, buys a cask of goon and then him a bunch of his underage mates get wasted.

If it was more than just a money grab and if they really cared about binge drinking then why set up a flat tax on alcohol based on standard drinks?
It is because they are all beer and wine drinkers?

This whole debacle is just more evidence of how democracy simply doesn't work.

I hear that.

But, just to play the other side, what if someone said that we shouldn't allow these companies to exploit kids' 'desires' by handing them candy flavoured alcohol?

Anyways, this leads us to another question I think is kinda interesting: What's your opinion on alcohol consumption in general, and/or the consumption of 'illicit' drugs, and what is their place in society e.g. in your benevolent Trevtopia are 'illicit' drugs illicit, or are they permissible? Or does it depend on the drug?

Andrew.C wrote:
But, just to play the other side, what if someone said that we shouldn't allow these companies to exploit kids' 'desires' by handing them candy flavoured alcohol?

I don't think that adults who buy these drinks should be punished just because kids like them too.
They don't really target kids. Alcohol advertising doesn't exist in kids media and kids can't buy them so how they even know about them? Through their parents and other adults.
One of Labors main points wasn't kids it was legal age young women binge drinking on Cruisers/UDLS etc. They argued that these drinks go down to easily and have no alcoholic 'kick' to their taste but that is complete BS. Beer has no 'kick' to it's taste while a 9% pre-mix certainly does. There also seems to be an attitude amongst beer drinkers that alcoholic drinks shouldn't taste good....

Even if they are targeting kids I still can't understand how any intelligent, educated government can justify having a huge tax on one type of drink and not the others. It's unjust and brings me back to my earlier point that according to Labor it's ok to binge drink as long as it's beer, wine and spirits.

Andrew.C wrote:
Anyways, this leads us to another question I think is kinda interesting: What's your opinion on alcohol consumption in general, and/or the consumption of 'illicit' drugs, and what is their place in society e.g. in your benevolent Trevtopia are 'illicit' drugs illicit, or are they permissible? Or does it depend on the drug?

Well you've got me there. By all rights drugs that have a detrimental effect on the individual and society are bad but alcohol tastes great, makes women appear more attractive and makes one virtually invulnerable to criticism.


EDIT: Alright I've thunk 'bout it.
Let's not forget that Trevtopia will only by inhabited by intelligent people so all the 'nanny-state' laws that exist in this arse-end of the planet will not be necessary.
You want to smoke a bit of pot? Go ahead. Want to get drunk and have some harmless fun? Go for it.
If these actions result in other crimes then you will be banished.

Hey, an 'edit'. Lucky I checked this post again.

You see, here's a good example of the difference between class and whoredom: Trev will go out of his way to post relevant information in the same post, even though there's a risk that someone might miss it; whereas Glen over there is happy to go posting several single-digit word-count posts in a row even when they contain no content, as long as it contributes to the post count.

Nice going, captain Glen.

Anyways, I hear what you're saying on the alcohol tax, Trev. A single tax on one type of alcohol seems pretty silly, and unfair.

and

you

do

the same... (too lazy to finish this game)

Trebor wrote:There also seems to be an attitude amongst beer drinkers that alcoholic drinks shouldn't taste good....

Are you saying that you don't like beer, so beer drinkers clearly don't like things that taste good? (Aiming to understand, not take the piss)

Well I don't like beer but that's a matter of personal taste.
That comment is based on the general attitude that beer drinkers had to the tax in the first place on other forums that I use. A lot of them supported the tax because there was no alcoholic 'kick' to the drinks and that they tasted too good which made them appeal to younger (not necessarily underage) drinkers.
I found both attitudes strange as beer has no 'kick' and I thought drinks were supposed to taste good.

Not that i've read their posts or know who they are, but I think maybe they were aiming at this:

the Alcohol:Liquid content in Beer means there isn't as big a kick per mouthful, (and yes beer is definitely an acquired taste) and the sugar content in these premix drinks means younger drinkers won't notice the alcohol they're consuming... in any case it's late, i don't agree with the tax, but i do agree that ensuring easy to drink, high alcoholic content drinks will not benefit society, ergo, concordantly they should be made less appealing in some fashion...

Glenjamin wrote:, high alcoholic content drinks will not benefit society, ergo, concordantly they should be made less appealing in some fashion...

We can continue to tease people who drink Cruisers.

Agreed... But what about people who drink Coke Zero "It tastes just like coke!"