There is a consensus in addiction research by the experts that educating people on the harmful effects of drugs (and alcohol is without a doubt one of the most harmful drugs there is) has only a small effect on how many people become addicted (unfortunately - I've mentioned that I'm a teacher by trade, and my first impulse is to recommend measures which improve education). What undoubtedly works very well, though, is restricting the sale of alcohol to special shops/ liquor stores, which have limited opening times, and making alcohol very expensive. From the perspective of a politician, the decision is rather simple: Would you rather allow one of the deadliest drugs to be freely available and have tens of thousands of people become addicted and die, or would you (slightly) restrict the freedom of the population (you can still buy alcohol, can't you?) with huge effects on public health?emphatic wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 1:41 am I don't mind paying taxes as long as it's not eaten up primarily by bureaucrats. We even have people employed by the state (tax money) checking beer labels for signs of depiction of people overly enjoying alcohol so these brands can be banned from sale, because our state forces us to buy alcohol from one state-run store and nowhere else. And only between 10-6 on weekdays and 10-3 on Saturdays. This is a country that does not treat adults as adults, and this is why free speech has been under attack for such a long time here.
Then again, it has been shown that the alcohol lobby is very influential in Germany, which is why you can still buy dirt cheap alcohol here around the clock. Which is one of the reasons for why so many Germans (at least 70,000) die each year as a result of their alcohol consumption. Same goes for tobacco, which kills at least 120,000 Germans a year. I just don't see how these results outweigh the minimal restrictions on freedom that will lead to so much less suffering, deaths, and costs carried by the public health system.