Alcohol Ban

landsleaving

Whether you were raped or you raped someone else, blame the rapist, not the alcohol.

PCPhoto

Greyfox wrote: »

Please close this stoopid foopin thread, next you'll be looking to ban salt and McDonalds and porn, this is by a mile the dumbest thread ever!

I'm offended :eek:

Greyfox wrote: »

The law should go harder on drunk drivers, been intoxicated should not be allowed as an excuse for robberies, rape etc...only an idiot would blame alcohol rather then the person

Alcohol is proof god loves us and wants us to be happy, life wouldn't be worth living without it!

I agree with that - people who blame alcohol or committing crimes 'cos they were in fear for their lives should be punished properly instead of the slap on the wrist they normally get.

wasnt there a guy a few days ago ...banned for 20yrs, drink driving causing someones death, and the Rugby guy ...banned from driving and he was intoxicated and killed a young boy....or the muppet banned for 45yrs, cos he disobeyed a previous ban of 25yrs ...send the feckers to jail and stop them doing it for at least the couple of years while they are locked up.

PCPhoto

--LOS-- wrote: »

that's a percentage now?

Just saying, drink doesn't automatically victimize you.

ok...heres a statistic for you:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alarm-at-rape-conviction-rate-1966140.html

JUST 7pc of rapes reported to gardai result in convictions, one of the most extensive studies ever carried out on the subject has found.

The landmark study was given unprecedented access to almost 600 files held by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and looked at more than 170 Central Criminal Court trials and transcripts of cases.

It found just seven out of every 100 suspected rape cases reported to gardai led to convictions. Countless more rapes were never reported at all.

Rape Crisis Network Ireland (RCNI) will launch the report 'Rape and Justice in Ireland' at a conference in Dublin today which will be addressed by Deputy Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan, DPP James Hamilton and Mr Justice Paul Carney.

The report found that the quality of social and official support for survivors of rape is vitally important in determining whether a case progresses to court or not.

Meanwhile, many survivors and officials tended to think and act in terms of "real rape" scenarios -- such as the stereotypical image of a woman being raped by a stranger on a street at night -- despite the fact that the majority of rapes don't happen like that.

Director of the RCNI, Fiona Neary, said survivors of rape often feel it is they who are on trial. "We know from victims that the criminal justice system is failing in rape cases. Ireland's conviction rate from reported incidents to conviction is amongst the lowest in Europe.

"Survivors in Rape Crisis Centres tell us of their fears about reporting. They talk of the lack of dignity and respect in how they are treated; how they feel it is they who are on trial, and how their voice is ignored by the system," she added.

Many victims who do report rape are left in limbo as they wait for the case to finally come to trial, sometimes several years later.

"For those who have a positive experience of reporting, they also feel isolated and lost, are not kept informed and have been unable to move on with their lives because of the years waiting for their case to come to court," explained Ms Neary.

In a recently published review of activities by the RCNI, it emerged that victims are more prepared to report rape and sexual violence to gardai. Around one in five people using the network in 2008 had reported it to gardai, up from around 6pc in 2000.

Stranger

However, Ms Neary pointed out that abuse by a stranger is still more likely to be reported by a victim, while abuse perpetrated by family members is the least likely to be. "That means the most prevalent abuse is not being reported at all," she said.

Among adults, women are more likely to be raped or abused by someone they know, including by a partner or ex-partner, while men were more likely to be abused by a stranger.

The latest research, which was headed by Conor Hanley, lecturer at the National University of Ireland, Galway, also heard the direct experiences of 100 survivors of adult rape.

- Breda Heffernan

yoyo

upandcumming wrote: »

Alcohol was around much longer so is far more accepted than drugs.

Alcohol is sold as a beverage intended to be consumed. The pint I buy at the bar or cans from the off license dont contain the words "plant fertilizer" or "bath salt" etc, I dont think headshops should be banned (And tbh getting sick of hearing about them at this stage) but I do think they need to sell the items as stuff to be consumed (and provide neccesary research to show in moderation it is ok), but selling the stuff as not intended for human consumption when it clearly is is ripping the p!ss

Nick

Prof.Badass

PCPhoto wrote: »

just had a thought (careful)

we hear all these deaths/incidents and the "defendant" in court generally blames alcohol and/or drugs - since drugs are already banned .... why not alcohol !!

I know we're gonna have some people come in here saying if thats the case why dont we ban everything else that fun etc etc.

I just want people to think about it, maybe ban some people from getting any (particularly those who come to the attention of the Gardai)

Anyway
- Car crashes !! , loads of statistics saying drunk drivers are at fault, no alcohol, less crashes.
- Assaults !! EVERY defendant was "intoxicated" or suffering from "alcohol and/or drug addiction"
- Robberies - a large amount of them are carried out under the influence of alcohol, someone who is tanked up and doesnt have money gets the bright idea to rob a shop with a toy gun...or rob someone.
- Rape - there are a high number of Rapes where alcohol is a factor, the victim is sometimes drugged (drink spiked) or is extremely drunk and attacked as a soft target.
- Murder/Manslaughter in 2008 there was a number of drink/drug fuelled murders, infact in a significant number of cases of Manslaughter alcohol is mentioned in cases.

What good does alcohol do ? (apart from lower inhibitions and help ugly people get sex)

'cause the prohibtion on drugs is just working out splendidly :rolleyes:.

In terms of how it effects your brain alcohol is not that much different from your standard benzodiazepine, just way more toxic. If you really wanted to reduce the harm caused by alcohol you'd legalise a safer alternative to it and encourage people to switch over. I'd assume most people would do so eventually for the health benifits (and no hangover). I believe prof.Nutt wants to investigate pagoclone for this reason (of course that would involve admitting the scientific truth that alcohol is just a drug like all the rest, something which is not a popular notion because it goes against what people want to believe).

PCPhoto wrote: »

then why do we ban drugs ?

Do you honestly think the "war on drugs" is based on sound logic?

It's a leftover relic from the time of the temperence movement (the same lovely crowd who brought prohibition to the states), then instead of ending when all those self-righteous busybodies died it was latched onto and relaunched by politicians eager to be seen doing something about the hippie scourge and forced upon the world through the UN. From then on the population has been so blinded by propaganda and hysteria that reasoned debate has been impossible and a politician cannot get voted in without promising to further commit to this pointless and incredibly destructive "war" on drugs.

Michaelrsh

As fair as I know blasphemy IS against the law.

... therefore close this thread.

--LOS--

PCPhoto wrote: »

ok...heres a statistic for you:

Thanks, I think most people accept that anyway but it's a complicated issue. The topic is about alcohol, do you think banning alcohol is going to prevent rape?

dasdog

Yes it should be banned. For a month to demonstrate the futility of similar prohibition*


*Just make sure there is sufficent notice for me to get a few hundred cans in.

Marty McFly

vinylmesh wrote: »

'cause the prohibtion on drugs is just working out splendidly :rolleyes:.

In terms of how it effects your brain alcohol is not that much different from your standard benzodiazepine, just way more toxic. If you really wanted to reduce the harm caused by alcohol you'd legalise a safer alternative to it and encourage people to switch over. I'd assume most people would do so eventually for the health benifits (and no hangover). I believe prof.Nutt wants to investigate pagoclone for this reason.



Do you honestly think the "war on drugs" is based on sound logic?

It's a leftover relic from the time of the temperence movement (the same lovely crowd who brought prohibition to the states), then instead of ending when all those self-righteous busybodies died it was latched onto and relaunched by politicians eager to be seen doing something about the hippie scourge and forced upon the world through the UN. From then on the population has been so blinded by propaganda and hysteria that reasoned debate has been impossible and a politician cannot get voted in without promising to further commit to this pointless and incredibly destructive "war" on drugs.

I agree with u totally i definetly believe the majority of drugs should be legalized. That way you could take the criminal element out of it, and also monitor what goes into them. drugs like hash are far les destructive than alcohol just that alcohol is seena more socially acceptable by the masses due to the media basically.

And yes i do like a drink at the weekends, and no i dont do drugs anymore I used to but i guess i grew out of it but i still belive people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to. Its worked in amsterdam.

PCPhoto

vinylmesh wrote: »

'cause the prohibtion on drugs is just working out splendidly :rolleyes:.

Do you honestly think the "war on drugs" is based on sound logic?

It's a leftover relic from the time of the temperence movement (the same lovely crowd who brought prohibition to the states), then instead of ending when all those self-righteous busybodies died it was latched onto and relaunched by politicians eager to be seen doing something about the hippie scourge and forced upon the world through the UN. From then on the population has been so blinded by propaganda and hysteria that reasoned debate has been impossible and a politician cannot get voted in without promising to further commit to this pointless and incredibly destructive "war" on drugs.

Honestly .... No ! ..... i dont think the "war on drugs" is based on sound logic, I would be in favour of regulating the drugs trade - similar to the way that alcohol is regulated.

the way I see it - Alcohol effects too many people, so to ban it would mean public outcry and to go against the majority.

can people do without alcohol ?...yes ! .... will they ? not a chance !!

lets face it - alcohol is a part of everyones life, there are not too many people in Ireland who can say that they dont know anyone that drinks alcohol, I'm not saying its behind ALL of the countries problems - but its used as an excuse for some of them.

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

I agree with u totally i definetly believe the majority of drugs should be legalized. That way you could take the criminal element out of it, and also monitor what goes into them. drugs like hash are far les destructive than alcohol just that alcohol is seena more socially acceptable by the masses due to the media basically.

And yes i do like a drink at the weekends, and no i dont do drugs anymore I used to but i guess i grew out of it but i still belive people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to. Its worked in amsterdam.

I've "smoked" twice in my life and would agree with you - some drugs should be legalised and regulated - this would allow the government to take money from criminals - lets face it - what do they have if we take away the drugs trade ? .... robberies, assaults, money laundering, counterfitting

Dravokivich

according to this poster... http://www.drinkaware.ie/images/984poster_a&e_01.jpg ... you are more likely to end up in A&E sober....

yer problem with drinking is?

--LOS--

Ad FAIL

Terry

First off, OP you should know that vinylmesh has a pro-legalisation agenda. Has had for years.
I'd take some of his facts with a pinch of bath salt.
Let's see. Legal highs. Drug dealers burn down the shops.
Why? Because it is doing them out of business. But they'll stop all of that if all or certain drugs are legalised, right?
Of course they will. These legitimate businessmen would never deliberately harm anyone. The world will be a peaceful and happy place when currently illegal drugs are legalised.

As for prohibition of alcohol, GTFO.
I was talking to a friend earlier. He was telling me about the stag weekend he had just been on. Everyone was out of it on coke and most of them can't remember what happened because of that. Woooooooooooooo!!! Awesome and forgotten weekend.
At least with alcohol you don't get the craving to get more every five minutes, and can judge the amount you are taking.

sdanseo

No, alcohol shouldn't be banned.

Those who continuously and repeatedly take in so much of the stuff that it makes them antisocial should be banned from consuming it for a set period, and if thy break it fine them to high heaven or lock them up.

If there was one product to be banned, I'd say ban vodka. All my mates drink solely to get drunk, usually with a shoulder and a litre of coke - it's obscene. I don't touch the stuff for that reason, I;ve seen what a mess they are and everyone says it's a bit of fun - it's STUPID. Nothing else. No harm in a few pints but this whole drinking purely for the buzz of being drunk, or for dutch courage with the birds, is a mess and antisocial if anything (not that it doesn't work). No different to popping a few E's to get the buzz in my mind. Or why not smoke spliffs at the bar.

Our licensing laws don't help - everyone rushes to buy drink by 10pm, the clubs don't fill up till 12pm so for those two hours people lash vodka into them like there's no tomorrow. Even aside from that effect, the licensing law is moronic at best.

landsleaving

A few spliffs at the bar would be far less problematic than downing a shoulder of vodka to get hammered.

Corkfeen

minidazzler wrote: »

I would agree with an alcohol prohibition for one reason.

1920's era speakeasy's were supposedly the shiznit! That would be awesome these days! It would reaffirm gender identities with Men being men and women being dames!

I concur and we could have our own branch of the untouchables...... T'would be the best craic the nation has had in centuries.;)

Terry

sdonn wrote: »

No, alcohol shouldn't be banned.

Those who continuously and repeatedly take in so much of the stuff that it makes them antisocial should be banned from consuming it for a set period, and if thy break it fine them to high heaven or lock them up.

If there was one product to be banned, I'd say ban vodka. All my mates drink solely to get drunk, usually with a shoulder and a litre of coke - it's obscene. I don't touch the stuff for that reason, I;ve seen what a mess they are and everyone says it's a bit of fun - it's STUPID. Nothing else. No harm in a few pints but this whole drinking purely for the buzz of being drunk, or for dutch courage with the birds, is a mess and antisocial if anything (not that it doesn't work). No different to popping a few E's to get the buzz in my mind. Or why not smoke spliffs at the bar.

Our licensing laws don't help - everyone rushes to buy drink by 10pm, the clubs don't fill up till 12pm so for those two hours people lash vodka into them like there's no tomorrow. Even aside from that effect, the licensing law is moronic at best.

Nah, you can't pick one specific drink.
Vodka messes me up, so I don't drink it any more.
If your friends can't handle it, then give them a slap or a talking to or something. Then introduce them to beer.
Beer is awesome.

Herbal Deity

sdonn wrote: »

No different to popping a few E's to get the buzz in my mind.

Which is not antisocial at all...

sdanseo

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Which is not antisocial at all...

My point exactly...you misinterpreted.

Prof.Badass

Terry wrote: »

First off, OP you should know that vinylmesh has a pro-legalisation agenda. Has had for years.

Well obviously, it's pretty clear from my post where i stand on the issue. It's not like i'm trying to hide anything from anyone.

I'd take some of his facts with a pinch of bath salt.

Are you going to actually disprove anything i have said or just throw about baseless accusations.

sdonn wrote: »

No, alcohol shouldn't be banned.
Those who continuously and repeatedly take in so much of the stuff that it makes them antisocial should be banned from consuming it for a set period, and if thy break it fine them to high heaven or lock them up.

If there was one product to be banned, I'd say ban vodka. All my mates drink solely to get drunk, usually with a shoulder and a litre of coke - it's obscene. I don't touch the stuff for that reason, I;ve seen what a mess they are and everyone says it's a bit of fun - it's STUPID. Nothing else. No harm in a few pints but this whole drinking purely for the buzz of being drunk, or for dutch courage with the birds, is a mess and antisocial if anything (not that it doesn't work).

And what's so bad about that? The problem with your friends is they're drinking too much, not what they're drinking or how they drink it. I happen to drink vodka in a simmilar way, only I have a naggin instead of a shoulder. While i stick to this way of drinking I never end up drinking too much. When i slowly drink cans i usually feel the urge to keep drinking and as a result end up drinking more than i originally intended to.

No different to popping a few E's to get the buzz in my mind. Or why not smoke spliffs at the bar.

If by "no different" you mean "in each case you're taking a drug for it's mind altering effect", then yes, there really isn't that much of a difference.

Pace2008

Terry wrote: »

As for prohibition of alcohol, GTFO.
I was talking to a friend earlier. He was telling me about the stag weekend he had just been on. Everyone was out of it on coke and most of them can't remember what happened because of that. Woooooooooooooo!!! Awesome and forgotten weekend.

That doesn't sound right at all. I dislike coke not only because it can turn me into a cock, but also because I can remember having been a cock under the influence. Stimulants are usually pretty lucid drugs unless you cain in to the point you end up with psychosis.

When I act the dick on the beer at least I usually have the safety net of a blackout to provide comfort.

At least with alcohol you don't get the craving to get more every five minutes, and can judge the amount you are taking.

Do you mean you know the content of you drink, or you have the presence of min to limit your intake? If it's the latter I couldn't disagree more - I've never encountered a drug that obliterates your sense of judgement to the same extent as alcohol. As for the craving: I know plenty of people, myself included, who will drink continuously until they pass out once they get beyond a certain point.

g5fd6ow0hseima

When will the people of ireland finally recognise that alcohol is just as much a recreational drug as canabis, ecstacy or amphetamines?

Too often I hear heavy drinkers refer to 'drugs' (obviously in a negative manner).

The sooner people realise this, perhaps this country may climb out of its awful drink habit.

TPD

I'm guessing the OP made this thread to highlight the similarities between the current laws on drugs and the prohibition of alcohol? I doubt those people too set in their ways against drugs will take the time to think about the hypocrisy as they defend alcohol though.

PCPhoto

TPD wrote: »

I'm guessing the OP made this thread to highlight the similarities between the current laws on drugs and the prohibition of alcohol? I doubt those people too set in their ways against drugs will take the time to think about the hypocrisy as they defend alcohol though.

to be honest I didnt even think about that ..... it was basically about how drink is so rife in society that people dont see it as a negative influence on their lives.

people use "alcohol" ..... and people abuse "alcohol" .... people blame alcohol and THEIR dependance on THEIR BEHAVIOUR (ie. criminal behaviour and in general for stupid actions)

silly topic

PCPhoto

Davegalway wrote: »

silly topic

thats your opinion .... and you are entitled to it.

quick question: Do you know anyone who doesn't drink ? or goto the pub to socialise ?

ever do something and blame alcohol ? ( oh I was sooooo wasted last night .... did I do anything stupid ? )


my answers to those questions:
- I know some people who dont drink, some of them goto the pub to socialise.
- yes I've blamed alcohol for loads of things, once I was so drunk I walked out of my hotel room and locked myself out ...nekked and because I was still drunk I was convinced the hotel security guy was after me for being nekked and I was gonna get arrested - spent a bit of time running around the hotel avoiding him..... not really blaming alcohol but wanted to share that with ya.

ScumLord

minidazzler wrote: »

I would agree with an alcohol prohibition for one reason.

1920's era speakeasy's were supposedly the shiznit! That would be awesome these days! It would reaffirm gender identities with Men being men and women being dames!

Hell ya, criminalize everything it's more fun that way. Half the fun in having half an ounce of cocaine is sniffing it all before the federales burst through your door.

upandcumming wrote: »

Alcohol was around much longer so is far more accepted than drugs.

I don't think that could be true, as far as I know earliest records go back 9000 years while cannabis and other plants like mushrooms have been used for at least 10000 years. Remember alcohol needs to be processed whereas most other drugs are ready to pick fresh.

Greyfox

TPD wrote: »

I doubt those people too set in their ways against drugs will take the time to think about the hypocrisy as they defend alcohol though.

The difference is most people who drink alcohol don't get into a position where it could ruin their lives, whereas I personally believe if I take drugs like Cocaine it's likely that I could get addicted to it and let it ruin my life

Pace2008

Greyfox wrote: »

The difference is most people who drink alcohol don't get into a position where it could ruin their lives, whereas I personally believe if I take drugs like Cocaine it's likely that I could get addicted to it and let it ruin my life

Cocaine is an addictive drug, but a lot of people take it and very few of them end up addicted. Even with hard drugs, the majority of people have the sense to limit their use and stop the substance controlling their lives. You have this idea that coke would chew you up and spit you back out, but in reality you'd likely see a potentially destructive habit forming from a mile away and nip it in the bud.

In any case, apart from cocaine and heroin (and probably mephedrone), most mainstream drugs are less addictive than drink.

Herbal Deity

Greyfox wrote: »

The difference is most people who drink alcohol don't get into a position where it could ruin their lives, whereas I personally believe if I take drugs like Cocaine it's likely that I could get addicted to it and let it ruin my life

1. Have you verified that the percentage of drinkers who screw up their lives due to alcohol is much less than the percentage of cocaine users who screw up their lives due to cocaine? (I don't know myself, I'm just wondering if you'd checked this out before arriving at your personal belief)

2. What do you mean by "drugs like cocaine"? Drugs with the addiction potential of cocaine? How do you feel about drugs like Marajuana, LSD, MDMA etc. which have much less addiction potential than even alcohol?