Life in all its form, is there to be experienced in moderation. Sadly there are some by lifes experience, turn to the extremes, and also those sports groupies who follow the crowd. There is no easy answer and definately no need for "Another Law".

Consuming alcohol has forever held a place in the minds of young people as being something that not only allows them to relax and have fun, but more importantly it makes them feel part of their social group. To go out to a pub, bar or club with friends and to not drink is almost unheard of and can often be frowned upon by others. I say this not as a "nanny" or as someone who wants the price of alcohol to increase or for more laws to be made. I write this as someone who has experienced peer pressure from others when I used to regularly go out as the designated driver.
There seems to be the common belief that unless you are drunk you cannot possibly be having a good time. I do not believe that this attitude has been developed by advertising. It seems to me that people today tend to look for quick fixes and because alcohol is so readily available and is so socially acceptable, it is seen as an easy way to feel better and escape problems. Advertising does not create this.
Maturity and life experience will hopefully teach these young people that alcohol is not the answer to life's problems. Maturity and life experience will hopefully show them that excessive consumption of alcohol is not something that they need to do to have fun and feel socially engaged with their peers. Maturity and life experience will hopefully show young people that you can drink moderately or not at all and you can still have a good time.

What we should be doing seemed so obvious after reading the article.

But after reading the posts, I just don’t know. It’s all now so confusing.

I wonder if the three bourbons I had while reading them has anything to do with it, on top of several beers??

I thingk we zhould zhust szdop tawlkin dribbl nnnnnnn all go nnn jill oud over a goldie or dwo.

It is not a matter of implementing either a ‘nanny state’ philosophy or a freedom of choice philosophy.

We need to find the right point on the spectrum between these two.

A bit of ‘nannying’ by our governments is good...and there is a lot of it in the realms of alcohol consumption. But we need more!

Part of it should be a lot of high-profile advertising about the negative aspects of alcohol, as with anti-smoking advertising.

Michelle O makes the point that alcohol is so ingrained in our social fabric that a person can feel very ostracised if they don’t drink in a social setting. Well, it used to be like that with smoking too. We can change it. But yes, it is a very hard one to get across to the younger set. It has to be done in such a way as to not risk causing a rebellious opposite reaction.

Many people realise the foolishness of excessive consumption with maturity, but some don’t…. and some don’t reach maturity as a result of excessive consumption. And some take innocent people with them.

In fact, this is one the biggest quandaries of all, concerning alcohol – the loss of good judgement when inebriated, or the lack of good judgement in the mentally immature, to the extent that they get behind the wheel of a car…. and end up wiping themselves out…. or getting busted for DUI, which can be a hell of a thing for a young person with no prior misdemeanours (no I haven’t been through that experience). It is apparently extremely hard for some people to separate a good time where they are being supported by all those around them, from a time when they are leaving themselves open to very serious police action against them… or much worse.

The drink-driving rate is a very powerful indication that we should not only be addressing that particular issue head-on, but should be addressing the entire issue of alcohol consumption, and attempting to break down its overwhelming social acceptance. So, bring on the nannying!

Ludwig's second post reminds me that any effective action will take some time. I think you ought to allow a generation — 25 years — before you can see how well you have done in changing behaviour. Seat-belts and reducing smoking took about that long.

I found it easy to be celibate in India in the early-mid ‘70s, hard not to be sexually promiscuous in the West (mainly England). Could this possibly be related to the heavy emphasis on and promotion of sex in the West, and the absence of that in India, where there was still a prevalent grasp of the underlying importance of spiritual life?

I believe (broadly) in individual choice and responsibility. But the exercise of choice and responsibility is obviously influenced by the prevailing culture, the social environment, which in Australia heavily promotes alcohol consumption. The “panca sila” moral code of many Eastern countries/religions recognises the benefits of leading a moral life and that intoxication is often a precursor to a wide range of actions which harm self and others. Surely our society can opt to put less emphasis on clearly harmful activities rather than promoting them?

I grew up in a heavy-drinking culture (north east England). Fortunately, I was never interested, and had the strength not to succumb to peer pressure.

At one time I used psychedelic drugs, which helped put me on to a very positive path of discovery. However, as a father I’ve always maintained a drug-free house (no alcohol, tobacco or other drugs). At the same time, I’ve never told my kids not to drink, smoke or take drugs; I’ve tried to bring them up to make their own decisions. Happily, none of them are attracted to drugs, if they do feel the urge it will be at an age (now 18-24) when they can have some perspective on their use, and they won’t be swayed by advertising.