Banning the use of glass in pubs and taverns....

[pErvinalia]

Whenever I've gone drinking in Germany I've never felt a fight is about to break out at any minute, not sure why must be a culture thing or I just went to the right bars when i was in Munich

It's true. Germans are the best drunks in the world.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Whenever I've gone drinking in Germany I've never felt a fight is about to break out at any minute, not sure why must be a culture thing or I just went to the right bars when i was in Munich

It's true. Germans are the best drunks in the world.

For power drinkers you gotta go Japanese.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I'll try to explain. You've made it clear that the reason for banning glass in this instance is because it is dangerous and has caused harm. This is very general. It is a useful rule to help distinguish between what may be banned and what it would make no sense to ban. However, it can be insufficient on its own to justify banning any particular thing.

To determine something legal status show be a combination of the following factors

1) danger to society
2) danger to user (killing yourself is generally legal these days but its quite common to restrict things that make it easier)
3) benefit to user
4) benefit to society
5) cost to society by banning it

So with glass
1) moderate danger to society, broken glasses on the floor, crime etc
2) same for user
3) incredibly useful in many cases
4) as 3
5) much of the economy is based around glass, if alternatives are available going to cost a lot in money and possibly in fossil fuels

Hence probably a bad idea to have blanket ban glass, but in more restricted areas this can be justified (lots of danger to the user/society in a crowded drunk pub), very limited benefits and not economically unreasonable to use plastic

Everything in 1-5 to up for debate, say whether we are talking about glass,car, or a gun, but notice what I don't include anything that involves 'freedom' that is simple irrelevant

Considering that it's responsible for over 8000 deaths per year here, it would be safer to just ban alcohol, surely.

[JimC]

I'll try to explain. You've made it clear that the reason for banning glass in this instance is because it is dangerous and has caused harm. This is very general. It is a useful rule to help distinguish between what may be banned and what it would make no sense to ban. However, it can be insufficient on its own to justify banning any particular thing.

To determine something legal status show be a combination of the following factors

1) danger to society
2) danger to user (killing yourself is generally legal these days but its quite common to restrict things that make it easier)
3) benefit to user
4) benefit to society
5) cost to society by banning it

So with glass
1) moderate danger to society, broken glasses on the floor, crime etc
2) same for user
3) incredibly useful in many cases
4) as 3
5) much of the economy is based around glass, if alternatives are available going to cost a lot in money and possibly in fossil fuels

Hence probably a bad idea to have blanket ban glass, but in more restricted areas this can be justified (lots of danger to the user/society in a crowded drunk pub), very limited benefits and not economically unreasonable to use plastic

Everything in 1-5 to up for debate, say whether we are talking about glass,car, or a gun, but notice what I don't include anything that involves 'freedom' that is simple irrelevant

Considering that it's responsible for over 8000 deaths per year here, it would be safer to just ban alcohol, surely.

Over my dead and pickled body!

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I'll try to explain. You've made it clear that the reason for banning glass in this instance is because it is dangerous and has caused harm. This is very general. It is a useful rule to help distinguish between what may be banned and what it would make no sense to ban. However, it can be insufficient on its own to justify banning any particular thing.

To determine something legal status show be a combination of the following factors

1) danger to society
2) danger to user (killing yourself is generally legal these days but its quite common to restrict things that make it easier)
3) benefit to user
4) benefit to society
5) cost to society by banning it

So with glass
1) moderate danger to society, broken glasses on the floor, crime etc
2) same for user
3) incredibly useful in many cases
4) as 3
5) much of the economy is based around glass, if alternatives are available going to cost a lot in money and possibly in fossil fuels

Hence probably a bad idea to have blanket ban glass, but in more restricted areas this can be justified (lots of danger to the user/society in a crowded drunk pub), very limited benefits and not economically unreasonable to use plastic

Everything in 1-5 to up for debate, say whether we are talking about glass,car, or a gun, but notice what I don't include anything that involves 'freedom' that is simple irrelevant

Considering that it's responsible for over 8000 deaths per year here, it would be safer to just ban alcohol, surely.

Over my dead and pickled body!

Just playing devil's advocate here...

[Sean Hayden]

If need be Jim.

[pErvinalia]

I'll try to explain. You've made it clear that the reason for banning glass in this instance is because it is dangerous and has caused harm. This is very general. It is a useful rule to help distinguish between what may be banned and what it would make no sense to ban. However, it can be insufficient on its own to justify banning any particular thing.

To determine something legal status show be a combination of the following factors

1) danger to society
2) danger to user (killing yourself is generally legal these days but its quite common to restrict things that make it easier)
3) benefit to user
4) benefit to society
5) cost to society by banning it

So with glass
1) moderate danger to society, broken glasses on the floor, crime etc
2) same for user
3) incredibly useful in many cases
4) as 3
5) much of the economy is based around glass, if alternatives are available going to cost a lot in money and possibly in fossil fuels

Hence probably a bad idea to have blanket ban glass, but in more restricted areas this can be justified (lots of danger to the user/society in a crowded drunk pub), very limited benefits and not economically unreasonable to use plastic

Everything in 1-5 to up for debate, say whether we are talking about glass,car, or a gun, but notice what I don't include anything that involves 'freedom' that is simple irrelevant

Considering that it's responsible for over 8000 deaths per year here, it would be safer to just ban alcohol, surely.

Over my dead and pickled body!

[Collector1337]

I'll try to explain. You've made it clear that the reason for banning glass in this instance is because it is dangerous and has caused harm. This is very general. It is a useful rule to help distinguish between what may be banned and what it would make no sense to ban. However, it can be insufficient on its own to justify banning any particular thing.

To determine something legal status show be a combination of the following factors

1) danger to society
2) danger to user (killing yourself is generally legal these days but its quite common to restrict things that make it easier)
3) benefit to user
4) benefit to society
5) cost to society by banning it

So with glass
1) moderate danger to society, broken glasses on the floor, crime etc
2) same for user
3) incredibly useful in many cases
4) as 3
5) much of the economy is based around glass, if alternatives are available going to cost a lot in money and possibly in fossil fuels

Hence probably a bad idea to have blanket ban glass, but in more restricted areas this can be justified (lots of danger to the user/society in a crowded drunk pub), very limited benefits and not economically unreasonable to use plastic

Everything in 1-5 to up for debate, say whether we are talking about glass,car, or a gun, but notice what I don't include anything that involves 'freedom' that is simple irrelevant

Considering that it's responsible for over 8000 deaths per year here, it would be safer to just ban alcohol, surely.

Over my dead and pickled body!

Pretty annoying when people want to ban shit you like, isn't it?

[Collector1337]

its hard to kill someone with fists or even a glass

Wrong.

It's hard for the average person. I'm sure there are trained people that can do it with ease. But, that not likely who you're going to end up trading punches with at a bar.

If you are kicking someone on the floor its likely to take minutes in most cases, normally before that a person will have calmed down or will have been pulled of (unlike a firearm which takes a fraction of second to kill)

Yeah, I've never seen a fight in public last more than half a minute.

Well... if you haven't seen it, then I'm sure it's never happened.

[Kristie]

Well... if you haven't seen it, then I'm sure it's never happened.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I meant.
I'm positive it does happen, but I'm positive it's not common.

[Ian]

Pretty annoying when people want to ban shit you like, isn't it?

Given enough alcohol, one can drink oneself to death if one likes. Given enough bullets and firearms, what can one do then?

Try another analogy, Sherlock.

[Collector1337]

Well... if you haven't seen it, then I'm sure it's never happened.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I meant.
I'm positive it does happen, but I'm positive it's not common.

Pretty sure bar fighters aren't trying to kill each other.

[Collector1337]

Pretty annoying when people want to ban shit you like, isn't it?

Given enough alcohol, one can drink oneself to death if one likes. Given enough bullets and firearms, what can one do then?

Try another analogy, Sherlock.

Sounds like you've watched too many movies if you think one man armies are plausible.

[Kristie]

Well... if you haven't seen it, then I'm sure it's never happened.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I meant.
I'm positive it does happen, but I'm positive it's not common.

Pretty sure bar fighters aren't trying to kill each other.

I wouldn't think so either.

[MrJonno]

Considering that it's responsible for over 8000 deaths per year here, it would be safer to just ban alcohol, surely.

On the harm front to society and the individual there is a strong case but you have to consider the benefits as well (humanity reproducing is one of them), the entertainment industry and general fun.

But more relevant is the cost to actually banning it, possibly it would be just enforceable in the UK being an island but it certainly wasn't in the US. I certainly don't look down on countries that restrict/ban alcohol on health/safety grounds however doing so because Mohammed said not to drink while smoking a fag is a different matter.

I personally like my bottle of wine more than than I'm worried about the risks to my health drinking it and someone bottling me with the glass but if the population as a whole differs then fairs fair