|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 22, 2014 8:15:20 GMT
Whilst talking to a medical friend, he has made a startling suggestion....
Would banning alcohol actually cut the cost of Accident and Emergency departments in half?...
Or anywhere close?...
He suggests that Alcohol bringing out the stupid gene in all people, its responsible for more than half the cost of running the A&E department.
I think he is on to something there.
I would love to know the actual data from A&E emergency rooms before and after prohibition in the USA, just to make a comparison, to see what was caused by direct link to Alcohol, and if it changed when prohibition ended... and by how much... and for how long...
I imagine the immediate "Party" lasted a while....
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 22, 2014 12:49:06 GMT
You might cut A&E costs from alcohol in some ways, but you would increase costs in others, illegal unregulated alcohol, as would inevitably be produced might contain all sorts of nasties like wood alcohol so you might have people go to Hospital with blindness, or stomach problems. You then would have problems were illegal drinking establishments would not have the same duty of care for their patrons so some people would be served when they were too drunk already, where a good pub would refuse them, so an increase in problems there.
Then if you get the sort of organised crime that America saw in the 1920s you would get a increase of injuries going to A&E, and although you make some savings there, the Governments budget is unbalanced as it no longer takes in Duty on drinks, and has to pay for a vast increase in law enforcement to try to stop alcohol from being brewed, something that huge numbers of people, particularly in this internet age have the knowledge to try. Yeast, Sugar or a Starch to break down to sugar would produce something drinkable, if not flavoursome.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 23, 2014 6:15:37 GMT
This is why I want to see historical data and not try to impose a real life ban.
How did the numbers stack up in American history... was there any noticeable historical effect pre-during-post prohibition in USA.
And of course you are right, banning and forcing underground just creates other problems we cant handle at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 23, 2014 11:19:39 GMT
Having googled a bit on it, I do not know if such figures would exist, A&E as we know it did not really exist back then, so I think direct comparison would be difficult.
The other problem would be in comparing modern medicine to those pre antibiotic days and other such advances that we take for granted, a person who we might give an expensive treatment to May well have been left just to die back then, yet now make a full recovery.
I am sure someone has done a PHD thesis on this, or it would make a great subject for one, but I cannot find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 24, 2014 8:00:44 GMT
A&E England is not the same as America, and no, it didnt exist, but, surely the data of what was and wasnt "Alcohol related" statistics must exist somewhere for all emergency rooms?....
Or is it that no one tied the two together in any related way back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 24, 2014 9:46:02 GMT
I do not even think that Hospitals had the type of Emergeny Medicine set up,that you are thinking of back then, or it was in its early primitive stages, I think more people were likely to go to their local GP with an injury and then be taken to Hospital. www.acoep.org/pages/history-emThis is a brief history from the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians website. I don not think the data exists as you need it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 24, 2014 15:26:09 GMT
the big question is whether you are talking about the hypothetical elimination of alcohol, or if you are talking about a realistic attempt to ban alcohol.
in a hypothetical elimination of alcohol, there would be cause to claim a reduction in alcohol related incidents. - and just looking at statistics where more responsible use of alcohol has been effectively enforced can support that.
in a real situation, statistics will most likely show that the attempt will be ineffective and the criminal activity associated with the ineffectiveness will more than compensate for the reduction in alcohol related incidents among those who obey the prohibition.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2014 6:41:06 GMT
So what you are saying is that people will drink MORE to stick a finger up to rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2014 13:57:18 GMT
So what you are saying is that people will drink MORE to stick a finger up to rules. some will. compare degrees of teenage drinking in the US where it is forbidden to regions where it is not forbidden. but I was also referring to bootlegging being an inherently dangerous career. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 26, 2014 8:22:48 GMT
Myth from "Moonshiners", a dubious Discovery documentary series, Moonshine is a right.
Its put out that the moonshiners see it as their divine right to moonshine, everyone knows they do it, no one interferes.....
How accurate is that?.. is "Country Life USA style" something that revolves around Moonshine, or is it just a low percentage of people that partake?..
And I know that NASCAR was originally all about Moonshine.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 26, 2014 11:13:35 GMT
You just have to look at the rise of organised crime in America during the 1920s to see the effects of Prohibition and the illegal activity it generated. On example of how bootlegging is an inherently dangerous career would be the St Valentines Day Massacre.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 26, 2014 12:46:54 GMT
Here is a thought. There are a number of dry counties in the USA. For example, Moore County TN where the only place that someone can legaly drink is the Jack Daniels factory, and only then certain taste testers. you could take a case history of the county hospital ER department. You could use that as a base for average rate of non alcohol related rates of accidents, and health emergencies. You could average those based on population size to get per capita rates. Then compare the figures for that hospital with a hospital from a similarly sized small town.
You could also compare rates from Utah towns where alcohol is legal, but is abnormally hard to get and shunned due to religious pressure.
There is another interesting thing to take into account. Studies have shown that dry counties are actually more likely to have alcohol related crashes because people have to drive further to get alcohol, thus increasing exposure to impaired drivers. Dry counties have a DUI fatality rate of 6.8 accidents per 10,000 people, whereas wet counties average at 1.2 accidents per 10,000. (Kelleher, Kelly (1997). Drug Abuse Research "Social and Economic Consequences of Rural Substance Abuse". MD: NHI. p. 196.)
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 27, 2014 9:46:16 GMT
May I just hold that up for a "Meanwhile in USA" moment.....
Your post has merits, and good ideas.
Its just that one part... why build a factory where its product will NEVER be sold?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 27, 2014 14:13:40 GMT
May I just hold that up for a "Meanwhile in USA" moment..... Your post has merits, and good ideas. Its just that one part... why build a factory where its product will NEVER be sold?... I suspect the factory predates the law... but on the other hand, it probably reduces evaporation...  |
|
|
|
Post by tom1b on Sept 27, 2014 15:34:08 GMT
Jack Daniels opened in its current location in 1884. Tennessee enacted prohibition in 1910. JD sued to overturn the law and lost. JD moved distilling operations out of Tennessee. The Lynchburg distillery was reopened after prohibition was repealed AND the state law was repealed in 1938. In 1994, the state passed a special law allowing the distillery to sell commemorative bottles, which happen to be filled with free whiskey. Now, any data from prohibition period would be pointless. Alcohol was never unavailable. Alcohol was available to anybody that wanted it. Prohibition is what caused organized crime to explode in the US. Your medical friend's statement is pretty...stupid. Pick a drug: heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana...Drugs are pretty much illegal everywhere, prohibited. You'll find police departments have a bigger budget for dealing with drug related crimes vs alcohol related crimes. In 2013, the budget for the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) was double that of the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco Firearms). And the DEA has an efficiency rating of under 1%. Your medical friend really sounds like they have a religious objection to alcohol. Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure" Conclusion: Lessons for Today Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons. First, it can provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition--a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure. Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union." |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 27, 2014 16:02:14 GMT
Jack Daniels opened in its current location in 1884. Tennessee enacted prohibition in 1910. JD sued to overturn the law and lost. JD moved distilling operations out of Tennessee. The Lynchburg distillery was reopened after prohibition was repealed AND the state law was repealed in 1938. In 1994, the state passed a special law allowing the distillery to sell commemorative bottles, which happen to be filled with free whiskey. Now, any data from prohibition period would be pointless. Alcohol was never unavailable. Alcohol was available to anybody that wanted it. Prohibition is what caused organized crime to explode in the US. Your medical friend's statement is pretty...stupid. Pick a drug: heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana...Drugs are pretty much illegal everywhere, prohibited. You'll find police departments have a bigger budget for dealing with drug related crimes vs alcohol related crimes. In 2013, the budget for the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) was double that of the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco Firearms). And the DEA has an efficiency rating of under 1%. Your medical friend really sounds like they have a religious objection to alcohol. Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure" Conclusion: Lessons for Today Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons. First, it can provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition--a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure. Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union." didn't I already point out there is a difference between theory and reality? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 28, 2014 9:35:36 GMT
Anyone can theorise.
Crime?... yeah, a small amount....
Which goes back to the question, how prolific is "Moonshineing" and how much of that created or was born of the need for prohibition in the first place.
Ita complicated subject.
Those who say prohibition didnt work because it created crime have not fully understood the levels of crime we have today.
If you prohibit something, there will always be a criminal supply of it.
#I doubt the criminal moonshinings of prohibition era were any worse than the hard drug trader we have today?....
Except I suspect that Alcohol is a lot safer than some drugs....
Where neither is safe where safe is safe but some are safer than others where safe is number of KSI figures per 1,000 users kind of safe....
As in its not safe.
But some are bloody lethal.
So those who say Prohibition "Created" crime, so what, what made that any different from TODAY?.....
Can you come up with percent of population involved in Prohibition related crime against "Hard drug" related crime and compare that with todays figures of other "substance" related crime.
Of course not, so then, what you have is a theory...
Maybe a well educated theory...
But you are leaving out the theory that some people hold that certain whole areas of certain citys are all involved in drug related crime in today's world.
Put that with the theory that some people say certain whole countries economy revolves around their ability to supply America with Drugs.......
You cant tell me that Prohibition was THAT bad?.....
But again, as stated at the top of this post, ANYONE can theorise, and this is just my theory.
My theory is there to pick holes in the theories of those who state Prohibition was a worthless exercise for the sole reason it created a huge underground illegal trade.
That illegal trade is human nature, its always been there, it always will.
Prohibition is wrong because Alcohol is a controlled substance, and if controlled in the right way, causes a lot less harm per 1,000 people than "Hard" drugs.
But still, I would like to see the figures...
If all mind altering substances were completely banned, how would that affect A&E figures?..
My theory, which anyone can hold, ifs that Mind altering drugs are responsible for more than just a minority of accidents, they may be responsible for the majority of accidents.....
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 28, 2014 10:37:21 GMT
Anyone can theorise. Crime?... yeah, a small amount.... Which goes back to the question, how prolific is "Moonshineing" and how much of that created or was born of the need for prohibition in the first place. Ita complicated subject. Those who say prohibition didnt work because it created crime have not fully understood the levels of crime we have today. If you prohibit something, there will always be a criminal supply of it. #I doubt the criminal moonshinings of prohibition era were any worse than the hard drug trader we have today?.... Except I suspect that Alcohol is a lot safer than some drugs.... Where neither is safe where safe is safe but some are safer than others where safe is number of KSI figures per 1,000 users kind of safe.... As in its not safe. But some are bloody lethal. So those who say Prohibition "Created" crime, so what, what made that any different from TODAY?..... Can you come up with percent of population involved in Prohibition related crime against "Hard drug" related crime and compare that with todays figures of other "substance" related crime. Of course not, so then, what you have is a theory... Maybe a well educated theory... But you are leaving out the theory that some people hold that certain whole areas of certain citys are all involved in drug related crime in today's world. Put that with the theory that some people say certain whole countries economy revolves around their ability to supply America with Drugs....... You cant tell me that Prohibition was THAT bad?..... But again, as stated at the top of this post, ANYONE can theorise, and this is just my theory. My theory is there to pick holes in the theories of those who state Prohibition was a worthless exercise for the sole reason it created a huge underground illegal trade. That illegal trade is human nature, its always been there, it always will. Prohibition is wrong because Alcohol is a controlled substance, and if controlled in the right way, causes a lot less harm per 1,000 people than "Hard" drugs. But still, I would like to see the figures... If all mind altering substances were completely banned, how would that affect A&E figures?.. My theory, which anyone can hold, ifs that Mind altering drugs are responsible for more than just a minority of accidents, they may be responsible for the majority of accidents..... Except that in the case of Heroin and Cocaine for example you need specific growing conditions in order to make your feedstock for drugs manufacture, certain chemicals that need to be used that are not so easy for Everyman in the street to get hold of and the drugs must be smuggled in so distance to the market. Alcohol on the other hand can be made by fermenting basic food products, fruit, grains, potatoes etc. with yeast that could be for bread making to make some form of alcoholic beverage. It's tough to ban people from having apples or chips with their fish. Alcohol can easily be made in the home market without need for smuggling across borders. It also has a place in our society for thousands of years, that newer drugs, at least in Western culture do not. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 28, 2014 14:08:23 GMT
Anyone can theorise. Crime?... yeah, a small amount.... Which goes back to the question, how prolific is "Moonshineing" and how much of that created or was born of the need for prohibition in the first place. Ita complicated subject. Those who say prohibition didnt work because it created crime have not fully understood the levels of crime we have today. If you prohibit something, there will always be a criminal supply of it. #I doubt the criminal moonshinings of prohibition era were any worse than the hard drug trader we have today?.... Except I suspect that Alcohol is a lot safer than some drugs.... Where neither is safe where safe is safe but some are safer than others where safe is number of KSI figures per 1,000 users kind of safe.... As in its not safe. But some are bloody lethal. So those who say Prohibition "Created" crime, so what, what made that any different from TODAY?..... Can you come up with percent of population involved in Prohibition related crime against "Hard drug" related crime and compare that with todays figures of other "substance" related crime. Of course not, so then, what you have is a theory... Maybe a well educated theory... But you are leaving out the theory that some people hold that certain whole areas of certain citys are all involved in drug related crime in today's world. Put that with the theory that some people say certain whole countries economy revolves around their ability to supply America with Drugs....... You cant tell me that Prohibition was THAT bad?..... But again, as stated at the top of this post, ANYONE can theorise, and this is just my theory. My theory is there to pick holes in the theories of those who state Prohibition was a worthless exercise for the sole reason it created a huge underground illegal trade. That illegal trade is human nature, its always been there, it always will. Prohibition is wrong because Alcohol is a controlled substance, and if controlled in the right way, causes a lot less harm per 1,000 people than "Hard" drugs. But still, I would like to see the figures... If all mind altering substances were completely banned, how would that affect A&E figures?.. My theory, which anyone can hold, ifs that Mind altering drugs are responsible for more than just a minority of accidents, they may be responsible for the majority of accidents..... so are you saying that if we enact prohibition, all the hard drug sellers will quit smuggling hard drugs and smuggle safer alcohol instead? prohibition was attempted. it didn't work. it cost a lot to try to enforce, and the efforts at enforcement failed. in theory, if intoxicants went away, injury accidents would be reduced. (both vehicle and non vehicle) no problem with that theory. what we are discussing is whether applying a prohibition under real world conditions would result in the black market trade of prohibited intoxicants plus illicit use of the substances maintaining or increasing the total number of injury accidents that had to be dealt with. the example I gave is the difference in the incidence of teenage binge drinking in the US (drinking age is 21) to places where there is no drinking age restriction. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 29, 2014 9:09:45 GMT
Stupid of 'em not to.
If the average man on the street starts thinking "Well, I dont agree with this ban", you have a market.
A "Safe" market.
And why was prohibition ended anyway?...
History shows us that they lost the war on Prohibition, as the people did not agree with it, and when that happens, you change Governments.
Either by their choice or ours.
Votes count.
Exactly...
Remembering I am a licensed to sell (By Retail) all intoxicating liquids either on or off the premises, as it says on my white on black, but, I can see two sides of this coin.
In controlled amounts there is benefit from community members gathering together for a good night out.
I have gathered much employment in my time from being in the right place at the right time, and this is still the case, people get work from knowing who needs what.
However... for every good side of Public Bar life, there are those who will over indulge.
To the point they are a guaranteed accident happening.
These trolls fill the A&E on Friday and Saturday evenings to the point no one else will go to A&E because they dont want drunks throwing up on them throwing something at them or picking a fight with them.....
Drunks are a major part of A&E life at weekends.
So how do we stop that?
The only sensible way, so some say, is prohibition type control of Alcohol...
Once again, the jerks dump-heads imbecile twits spoil it for everyone else.
What I am asking is how much would we save by stopping Alcohol being the cause of a majority of accidents.
(At certain times blah blah blah,......)
As in, How Much of A&E business is a direct or indirect result of alcohol... bet that the drunk injured, or innocent bystander injured by the actions of a drunk.....
So, One evening a real "Experience" of a drunk enters my Bar....
I aint serving him he is that drunk.
He is not exactly non functioning drunk, but over what you would expect to be asking for more drink drunk, and I expect at that time of night he has been asked to leave elsewhere for being too drunk, so he is trying it on with the first place he sees.... its an hour before closing, he wants to get as loaded as possible before then.
But I aint having him in here, I sense he will be trouble, and I wont get rid of him easily.
"Call me a taxi then, I will go home..." loose translation from fluid drunkeneese.....
Although this stuff writes its self, I held back from "Sir you are a Taxi" humour?....
But anyway, I called a Taxi.
"So gis a pint whilst I wait...."
No way, why dont you go wait outside for the taxi, he will be here shortly....
He missed the door... someone helped him out...
Ten mins later "The taxi wouldnt take me, find me another one".....
No.
I called for a Taxi, its your problem, go home....
He is shown (Politely) the door, which I shut after him, to try and prevent him getting back in, as he tried steeling other peoples pints because I wouldnt serve him.
Unfortunately, he then waits there for half hour until a customer tries to leave, and falls back through the door.....
I have no choice, I have to summon the Police to deal with a nuisance drunk who is now swearing profusely at other customers who are trying to get him back out the door and send him home?...
This is a good bar, we are all friends, we help each other.
But by the time the law arrive, he is now aggressively trying to break in the front door.
Its revealed he is "Known" to police from other area's, and is also known that he will feign injury to try and con drinks out of people.
He also turns up ate A&E quite regularly claiming food poisoning....
His liver is on its way out.
Drink is deadly to him.
But he is alcoholic......................
They had to take him to A&E for a pump out and emergency infusion of something that helps rid the system of toxins.... (I aint a medic, I dunno?....)
Apparently, from my "Bothan" {as Cyber likes that term) in the police Licensing office, he was about 2 pints away from kidney failure....
If I had served him and he had died?....
So why didnt I serve him?... that yellowing look around the eyes, that certain aroma, he wasnt just drunk, he was "Career" drunk, you get the sense of that type, you know they are trouble.
He was the first person I banned "For life" from my premises.
I also learnt he is banned from several other premises in the area...
His favourite trick to to look for places with new staff and try sneaking in when the boss aint watching.
|
|
