Destructive decisions --- Youths caught 'in the act' on Internet

Metro West Daily News ^ | 08/03/03 | Andrew Ravens

[Pest]

I will also thank you for your reply. It was well articulated.

I will say, however, that companies are held accountable for the intrinsic safety of their products. That's why we have the FDA, the Surgeon General, OSHA, etc. There is a huge bureaucracy that is expressly for the purpose of regulating the safety of most products.

I believe that it's the responsibility of a manufacturer of any product to inform the public of the possibility of any negative side effects of their product. In the case of alcohol, these negative side effects are clearly printed on every vessel containing the substance. In addition, there are groups like MADD, DARE, and other private organizations that are sending the message to everyone.

Let's face it, if anyone does not know that alcohol is dangerous and impairing, then they are ones who are putting their heads in the sand.

What I can't abide by is the trend toward holding manufacturers responsible for the end use of their product. If products are used as intended, then there are usually very few problems.

This is a bit different than Prairie's example of the bartender being held responsible. In that case, the bartender has the benefit of actually seeing the level of intoxication of a patron. The bartender makes an informed choice to ignore the dangers that a drunk driver can present. However, a manufacturer (or a bar owner in many cases) does not have the benefit of having any contact whatsoever with the person using their product. How could they be held responsible for the unintended side effects of the misuse of their product?

The essence of my argument is that people in our society are quick to blame everyone but themselves (or their loved ones) for their misfortunes. In a free society, people make decisions and they must accept responsibility for those decisions.

Everyone who drinks has made a choice in their life to begin drinking. I have not done any research on the subject, but I believe that it has been known for quite some time that alcohol is not necessarily healthy, especially in large or frequent doses. I believe that it has also been widely publicized that alcohol can be a very addictive substance for some people.

Therefore, it's the individuals decision to ignore the warnings that are omnipresent and decide to use a product that has known negative side effects. These people should be held responsible for their choices.

I have empathy for the victims and families of alcohol related deaths or disease. I believe that in cases of death or injury, the person responsible should be forced to pay any hospital bills, burial costs, etc. AND spend a significant amount of time in prison. In addition, these people (and others who are caught drunk driving) should be forced to perform community service such as performing talks on the dangers of alcohol from a first-hand perspective.

I do not believe, however, that people who use products in a responsible manner should be penalized for the irresponsible actions of other individuals. This will be the effect if manufacturers are required to spend extra money on advertisement that discourages people from using their product. These extra costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumer.

I may be a bit more Libertarian in my views than others in this forum. (I guess that Libertarian is a bad word for some on this forum.) However, many people would agree that we should have the freedom to do most anything as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. When individuals do infringe on the rights of others, then that is the time for government to step in. I don't believe that it's the role of government to preemptively decide which product has the potential of being used in a reckless manner.

As Prairiebreeze pointed out, manufacturers are being held responsible for the use of their products. I don't believe that this is the function of government. This is part of the reason that our government is becoming so cumbersome and we are being taxed for it to be that way. It is also the reason that trial lawyers are gunning for other industries like guns and fast foods. Like someone else pointed out, it's a slippery slope.

I don't necessarily disagree that it would be a good thing if manufacturers decide on their own accord to spend money on education, etc. However, I don't believe they should be forced to do so.

Prairie: How would you propose to entice a manufacturer to spend money on something that does not directly benefit them? They must be forced do so by either the government or consumers. How about if we support those manufacturers who do go the extra mile to educate and let the market decide? That would be a far more reasonable way to go about the whole thing. Vote with your wallet.

Thanks for the discussion.

Pest

[prairiebreeze]

Well let’s start with the government entities. The FDA, Surgeon General etc. fall way short IMO in their responsibilities to the public about the drug alcohol. And that’s what alcohol is, a powerful drug. That vapid label warning that you refer to that is currently on booze containers is laughable. Not only does it NOT term alcohol as a drug, but also the warning messages are very often carefully designed to not be very noticeable. Placed on the back of the bottle, or in colors that blend nicely into the rest of the label. Printed in small hard to read type. Hardly a good faith act from an industry that sells a legalized drug. More of a grudging response to the call for responsibility. I can hear the grumbling now. Granted, there are those that will never read or believe anything they don’t want to. But it’s a fact that it’s in the liquor industries best interest if the public doesn’t read the labels, doesn’t realize or is led down the merry path that minimizes the power and potential negative effects of the drug. Yup, the gullible ones are the ones being led, and as I posted before I ascribe fully to personal responsibility. But the booze industry is doing its share of the leading. And subtle deception.

How about that sorry plea on whatever beer commercial: “Remember to drink responsibly.”…or whatever it says. PULEEZE!! Tell that to a group of 16-year-old boys who have decided to drink. The horrendous effects of alcohol on still developing brains of adolescents are just now beginning to be understood. And if an alcoholic COULD drink responsibly, they WOULD drink responsibly. But they can’t. So they don’t. Might as well try to make snowballs in Hell. Nope, I think FDA falls way short on liquor. And so does Congress.

I am typically not in favor of government interference or regulation/over-regulation of business. And I don’t like the “coffee’s too hot” lawsuits etc. But by golly, liquor and tobacco are areas where I will draw an exception. For what I believe, are obvious reasons.

We’ve only scratched the surface in this discussion of groups or situations influenced by alcohol. Alcohol related crime for instance. Or crime escalated by the presence of alcohol. In this instance we can’t make comparisons between alcohol regulations and regulations for Fritos. I haven’t read too many stories about a group of guys munching down on corn chips and then gang raping a 17 year old. I most certainly have read several of that nature pertaining to booze. Somehow our society thinks, or we delude ourselves into believing that we shouldn’t demand more accountability from those that produce this highly addictive drug, that causes so much difficulty. Silly us. You stated the consumer would have to pay for extra costs associated when alcohol manufacturers are made to be more accountable. Paying? We already pay dearly! We pay for law enforcement, public defenders, judges and court-related time and services, drunk tanks, detox centers, jailors and prison wardens. Ambulance and morgue services, hospital services for domestic violence related, fights and accidents and the list goes on and on.

Big Alcohol has been able to sidestep tax increases for a good long while. As I understand it, booze is not taxed at the same rate as nonalcoholic beverages. And sighting from a source I credit at the bottom, **over time, after adjusting for inflation (again looking at larger periods of time here, not just the past few years) the “real” price of alcohol has actually declined significantly. Only one tax increase on alcohol and only then on distilled spirits was approved between 1950 and 1989. Pres. George H. W. Bush proposed a fivefold increase and polls indicated 75% of Americans backed it. (I know, I know, polls. But you have to agree 75% is a pretty impressive number). This meant though, some people, mostly teenage and college students might be discouraged from buying it. So Big Alcohol (beer industry mostly) launched a multimillion $$ “Can the Beer Tax” campaign. Congress predictably caved and only passed a much smaller increase.** Why don’t our elected officials have the ‘nads to assess accurately the full cost on our society of the drug and tax Big Al in sufficient measure to even it out? Political contributions are one reason, at least in the past. Some of the congressional members that I mentioned above as having substantial contributions to their campaigns include Gephardt, Feinstein, Frist….there are many others. Full justice IMO would be in further not allowing Big Al to pass on any of those extra tax costs to consumers. Let them figure out how they will make it up themselves. Maybe out of their ad budget.

And before anybody accuses me of being anti-business or any such nonsense, you should know that we are self-employed. I know all about a P&L statement. And I also know about conducting business in good faith. Which we try to do every day. But Big Alcohol doesn’t. Why do we let them get away with it???

While consumer pressure instead of government intervention might be appealing, I don’t ever see the effort gaining any legs. Or even a toe. Not with the advertising, big bucks lobby efforts of Big Alcohol. Too many consumers are duped quite successfully about there being no need for Big Al to roll up it’s sleeves and act like a man. And unless manufacturers who go the extra mile advertise that fact until the cows come home, and the consumers recognize that this is a good thing that they should support with their $$, it won’t happen either.

Pest, in a perfect world everybody would be responsible and we’d have few incidents. We aren’t living there of course. And we aren’t addressing ONE participant in the problem. The manufacturers.

Thanks for your discussion.

Prairie **sentences in asterisks are sourced from “Beyond the Influence” by Katherine Ketcham.