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

[Rum]

Revenue.

[MrJonno]

Revenue.

Question is does the revenue cover the financial costs, vast majority of causality admissions are alcohol related?

[Coito ergo sum]

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

How in the world is "doing so because Muhammet said not to" a different matter? If the majority of people believe in Muhammet and want his will reflected in the law, then under your "democracy uber alles" philosophy, so let it be written, so let it be done, right?

Your analysis, though, about how you "personally like" your bottle of wine more than you're worried about the risks is one of the arguments made by the pro gun people. They're lobbying for what they "personally like" and they think what they like is worth all the risks.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

What is your basis for classifying glass a "moderate" danger? Moderate in relation to what?

[MrJonno]

How in the world is "doing so because Muhammet said not to" a different matter? If the majority of people believe in Muhammet and want his will reflected in the law, then under your "democracy uber alles" philosophy, so let it be written, so let it be done, right?

Don't think any muslim dominated country has ever voted to ban alcohol, Turkey and Egypt certainly have restrictions on it but there is no ban

Your analysis, though, about how you "personally like" your bottle of wine more than you're worried about the risks is one of the arguments made by the pro gun people. They're lobbying for what they "personally like" and they think what they like is worth all the risks.

People can lobby for whatever that want, if a democratically elected government wanted to ban alcohol and I didn't like it tough on me really. I might possibly break such a law but I would accept the right of the state to punish me if I got caught

What is your basis for classifying glass a "moderate" danger? Moderate in relation to what

while I'm sure people occasional walk into glass windows as far as I know its pretty rare to die , people rare die from being glassed that often but you can get some serious injuries from it unlike say a car which I would put as a high danger about the same as a gun due to the death rate. It's not an exact science but what in democracy is

[Seth]

Revenue.

Question is does the revenue cover the financial costs, vast majority of causality admissions are alcohol related?

By a huge, enormous, staggering amount. Same with guns.

[MrJonno]

Don't know about alcohol but with tobacco is the loss of tax revenues from people being selfish by dying before their greatest tax creating potential period

[Seth]

Don't know about alcohol but with tobacco is the loss of tax revenues from people being selfish by dying before their greatest tax creating potential period

In other words, you object to the slaves laboring on your behalf offing themselves before they've worked long enough and hard enough to suit you.

You know that the basis for anti-suicide laws is precisely because the government doesn't want it's peons dying while there's still work to be whipped out of them don't you?

[Jason]

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

Interesting. Let's take this one on a test drive.

Alcohol:
1) High - Alcohol related crimes (including moving infractions) are responsible for 1023965 deaths world wide for this year alone to date.
2) High - Besides the inherent personal risk of being overly inebriated, heavy consumption of alcohol can also cause anemia, cancer, cardiovascular disease, cirrhosis, dementia, depression, seizures, gout, high blood pressure, increased susceptibility to infectious diseases, nerve damage, and pancreatitis.
3) Varies - Some research suggests it reduces chances of having a heart attack and stroke when used in moderation.
4) High - The industry built around the manufacture, distribution, and sales, of alcohol employs a lot of people and the tax revenue collected pays for a lot of civil services
5) Very High - Enforcement of the prohibition of a substance anyone can make by fermenting fruits or vegetables in their own home is very costly and very inneffective.

.. so how are these weighted again? Because alcohol is not illegal except for Muslims by their own code.. law.. thing.

[MrJonno]

3) benefit to user should include they people enjoy using it

[Jason]

Some do, others are addicted, and yet others consume it to self-medicate. Without stats it's pretty hard to make a qualified statement on that.

[Robert_S]

Don't know about alcohol but with tobacco is the loss of tax revenues from people being selfish by dying before their greatest tax creating potential period

IIRC, leading a heathy lifestyle puts a greater burden on the health care system in the long term as a healthy body can outlive the mind by more than a decade.

[MrJonno]

Don't know about alcohol but with tobacco is the loss of tax revenues from people being selfish by dying before their greatest tax creating potential period

In other words, you object to the slaves laboring on your behalf offing themselves before they've worked long enough and hard enough to suit you.

You know that the basis for anti-suicide laws is precisely because the government doesn't want it's peons dying while there's still work to be whipped out of them don't you?

Taxes aren't slavery they are rent for your citizenship and right to remain in a society

Anti suicide laws were originally religious based but in more modern times they weren't about punishing those who tried to kill themselves but about giving the police/authorities a legal right to intervene. Now they can intervene anyway even through the person isn't committing a crime. As to me objecting (at a moral not legal level) its a waste of their live and also loss to society in most cases anyway

[Seth]

Don't know about alcohol but with tobacco is the loss of tax revenues from people being selfish by dying before their greatest tax creating potential period

In other words, you object to the slaves laboring on your behalf offing themselves before they've worked long enough and hard enough to suit you.

You know that the basis for anti-suicide laws is precisely because the government doesn't want it's peons dying while there's still work to be whipped out of them don't you?

Taxes aren't slavery they are rent for your citizenship and right to remain in a society

No, they may be "rent" for YOUR citizenship and PERMISSION to remain in a society.

I'm a citizen by birth and I only have to pay taxes if I engage in taxable activities, which are only supposed to involve me using or enjoying some benefit that society bestows upon me that's paid for by taxes. Thus, if I drive on the highway, I may be required to pay a "user fee" in the form of gasoline and tire taxes to support the public amenity. However, if I don't drive, I don't have to pay that tax.

The unfair and unreasonable taxes are those that take the fruits of one person's labor from him by force and redistribute it to another person for whom the taxpayer has no moral, legal or ethical responsibility.

Anti suicide laws were originally religious based but in more modern times they weren't about punishing those who tried to kill themselves but about giving the police/authorities a legal right to intervene.

And they can even kill you using lethal force in order to save you. Which makes as much sense as "We've got to pass the bill so you can see what's in the bill."

The question is WHY do the police need a legal "right" to intervene in a suicide? What business is it of the government's if someone wants to kill themselves? Their life is their own, their most personal and private possession, and they are free to dispose of that life when and as they please because anything else is involuntary servitude.

Now they can intervene anyway even through the person isn't committing a crime. As to me objecting (at a moral not legal level) its a waste of their live and also loss to society in most cases anyway

Its their life to waste isn't it? Are you saying that society has a claim on everyone's life that rises to the level of prohibiting that person from ending an otherwise intolerable life? You do realize that that is the very essence of slavery don't you?

[MrJonno]

I'm a citizen by birth and I only have to pay taxes if I engage in taxable activities

So you think you should citizenship merely for existing?, typical libertarian parasite and freeloader thinking?. You get nothing in life for free including the right to breathe. It's not a big cost in being allowed to breathe don't try and kill anyone but its still a cost