That science and education are now pointing out the truth, that alcohol is a poison that should be banned from commercial sales, only worries those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, and that includes alcoholics currently in denial.

This is just like the “all sex is rape” argument you get from some radical feminists, and worthy of the same level of credulity.

Because that’s a terrific argument and all.

Bernard will be so disappointed that he’s been dropped off the list for your next Spirulina party.

And BK, schools were set up specifically to make sure kids aren’t dumber than their parents. That science and education are now pointing out the truth, that alcohol is a poison that should be banned from commercial sales, only worries those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, and that includes alcoholics currently in denial.

Using Mr Keane and his supporters’ similar straw man tactics (as if the cake stall, kebab shop and pizza kitchen wasnt enough already), maybe we should be opening up a bottle shop or two and a pub inside our hospitals where the friends and relos can forget their troubles outside of visiting hours?

Hospital patients and visitors - at least in private hospitals - can already get alcohol with their meals if they want it (if it doesn’t conflict with their treatment, of course).

To argue that since prohibition of something doesn’t work, therefore any attempt at regulation to improve health is evil is simply ridiculous and commits some basic logical errors.

No-one is arguing there should be no regulation.

The argument being made is that _more_ regulation (or taxation) is not required.

If alcohol were even a tenth as dangerous as prohibitionists would have us believe, humanity would have died out millennia ago.

And Sean Baker, you need to study logic. Bernard’s desire for doctors not to treat being a woman as a condition is in no way equivalent to telling women what they can or can’t talk about. That’s a cheap and lazy straw man you are hacking at with james.kite’s sword.

Make it swords then, tinman. People used to be able to walk around with swords in their belts. We can’t do that anymore. Is that a bad thing

Please, tell us more about how a sword (or an assault rifle) is comparable to a tinnie of XXXX.

I still don’t know what the primary objective is. As a regular purchaser of top shelf wines, I pay a disproportionate amount of WET (Wine Equalisation Tax). If, as seems possible, your objective is to have this tax levied on the alcohol content of booze rather than its price, then I must agree with you. My dollars will go much further.

Not so good for those of us whose preferred tipple is top-shelf Scotch, however. We’ll be getting screwed even more obscenely than we already are.

Precisely what is it that you are after, Bernard? A good argument or a good social outcome?

One would hope Bernard’s objective is to try and find the _real_ problem(s). The sheer number of countries with cheaper, easier and more common access to alcohol, but lacking the violence and binge drinking, make it clear to anyone who has a passing acquaintance with critical reasoning (or lacks a wowser authoritarian agenda) that alcohol is not the root cause.

You also are having a bit of fun at the expense of certain “experts”. Well done on that score. Expert opinion should be challenged thoroughly before being accepted and acted on.

I still don’t know what the primary objective is. As a regular purchaser of top shelf wines, I pay a disproportionate amount of WET (Wine Equalisation Tax). If, as seems possible, your objective is to have this tax levied on the alcohol content of booze rather than its price, then I must agree with you. My dollars will go much further.

If, however, your primary goal is for a free-for-all in a completely deregulated alcohol market, then I disagree.

Precisely what is it that you are after, Bernard? A good argument or a good social outcome?

I agree Jones’ and Thorn’s response to your original piece was weak but you don’t sound much better. Your shrill paragraph about the slippery slope of banning things is especially flawed: you can take your “logic” the other way and say we shouldn’t ban anything because people should be free to do whatever they want. Why not, for instance, allow people to purchase assault rifles? And while we’re at it, we may as well allow them to do so without having to obtain a license or having to register the weapon. And then let’s make it ok for people to carry their assault rifles where ever and whenever they like. Too far? But surely everyone will choose to do the right thing, Bernard?

Yes, there are some who work in preventive health who would like to take things too far. But that is true of every industry and slamming the whole profession as ivory tower elites with nanny state intentions is neither helpful nor fair. By all means, critique proposals made by those in preventive health, but a little perspective is required.