Flashermac Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Yeah. I had first written about how you could enlist at 17 in the US -- and drop bombs or shoot people, but couldn't be trusted with booze until they turned 21. (The feds insisted on that.) Then I had the thought about banning under 25 gals in bars. You must have replied to the original post while I was changing it. You are fast on the draw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limbo Posted June 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Was wondering about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 I'm not anti drink and enjoy a bevvy now and then but it is posionous and destroys familys, causes un necersary illnesses, violence, i cant blame any government trying to kerb alchohol problems, because its socially ok in most societys to drink it'll never be outlawed unlike other harmful drugs like hash and heroin etc....this idea clearly wont work because like the kids here who want to drink just get over 18's to buy it on their behalf, so as SD said, pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limbo Posted June 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Harmful drugs like hash, did you misstouch your keys Phil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 lazyphil said:...other harmful drugs like hash and heroin etc.... I've gotta ask, how are these substances intrinsically any more dangerous than, say, a sharp pencil? I believe people have a right to treat their own bodies in practically any way they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Partyguy Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 <<I believe people have a right to treat their own bodies in practically any way they wish. >> as long as you only affect your life................... I agree...but how many drug(any) users lock them selves in a closet and dont affect someone else.. If there is 100% chance that a fucked up drug addict isnt going to affect someone else, then by all means do as you wish. But unfortunatley.. things like drunk driving crime to pay for drugs increased health care costs broken homes burden on society etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. the list goes on for ever so unless there is some rich addict that pays for his habit and doesnt have any family relatives , friends of any kind and lives as a recluse then dies without any cost to society then this would be the only example of not affecting anyones life. oh I guess he would have to produce his own drugs, because if he was buying from a dealer he would be affecting that persons life and everyone in the dealers life, hence affecting someones life. think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 khunsanuk said: Hi, "argued that people between 21 and 25 years old were still too young to drink" Yet old enough to drive a car and marry ??? Anyway, this is not gonna change a damn bit upcountry where I imagine the majority of alcoholics live. Sanuk! You rang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 kk read partyguys post, pretty much what i think, i dont think pencil users burgal homes to steal dvd players etc to feed a scetching habit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglesoup Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Partyguy said:<<I believe people have a right to treat their own bodies in practically any way they wish. >> as long as you only affect your life................... I agree...but how many drug(any) users lock them selves in a closet and dont affect someone else.. If there is 100% chance that a fucked up drug addict isnt going to affect someone else, then by all means do as you wish. But unfortunatley.. things like drunk driving crime to pay for drugs increased health care costs broken homes burden on society etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. the list goes on for ever so unless there is some rich addict that pays for his habit and doesnt have any family relatives , friends of any kind and lives as a recluse then dies without any cost to society then this would be the only example of not affecting anyones life. oh I guess he would have to produce his own drugs, because if he was buying from a dealer he would be affecting that persons life and everyone in the dealers life, hence affecting someones life. think about it I think you can drink. Even if your family dont drink or some of your friends, just because they don t like drinking does nt mean they have the right to stop you drinking if you enjoy it. People should respect your free will. And not have the self-righteous attitude about drinking. Its a consumer preference. I ain t goin to tell anybody to stop drinking coffee. As the late Bill Hicks said, if you think drugs and alcohol are so bad then go and throw out your music collection. As for drink driven. I see people who are fucking awful drivers without alcohol, and very dangerous with the way they drive. A burden on society? The money that governments receive through tax is huge. As regards the 25 age, I dont think it will happen. If it does I would urge student protests at taking away a basic freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Yesterday's hearing also slammed tax-free alcohol sales at duty-free shops, saying the irony was that Thailand imposed a 400-per-cent tax on alcohol sales domestically, yet allowed tax-free alcohol sales from duty-free shops. The problem is obviously the duty-free shops; that is where your average 20 to 25 year old Thai buys his liquor. :: There is some political gamesmanship going on here. Thailand has a serious problem, and serious misdirection is required to address that problem. Although I don't think the legal age should be increased to 25, I can understand (even if I don't agree with) the reasoning behind this proposal. Thailand does have a serious drinking problem. One good way to address that problem is to have a rational tax regime on alcohol. In most of the rest of world, tax rates are based on the percentage alcohol. Here, it is mostly based on the underlying value of the product. This makes a good wine particuarly expensive. It also creates econoimic incentives for Thais to consume high octance low quality spirits (gut-rut). It is why beer Chang is such a success. But that won't fly here because the financial empire of one of Thailand's wealthiest men (not Mr. T, but a silent supporter) is built on cheap booze. And keeping foreign competition at bay. I can see the compromise now: we won't increase the legal limit to 25, but we're going put an end to those evil duty free shops that are poisoning our youth with cheap foreign liquor. It's the middle way. It's the Thai way. The appearance of addressing a problem, while actually protecting a local vested interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.