Ontario must rethink alcohol sales

What is the main argument(s) made by the author?

            The author of the blog, Ontario must rethink about the alcohol sales, Doug Ironside (2016) is a nurse practitioner and his arguments that he presented in the article is quite valid and supported by ample facts. The main topic of the discussion is the deregulation on alcohol sales in the state of Ontario in Canada. The recent legislative movement by the authorities are based on the increased availability of alcohol in the stores across the province of Ontario. The argument that has been pursued by the author is based on the health hazards the authorities are inflicting indirectly upon the general populace of Ontario by making alcohol easily accessible. The health hazards that are caused by abuse of alcohol and the regular use of alcohol are pointed out to be a detriment to the health of the nation and the expenses that are put upon the state to care for the affected populace.
The authorities justify their actions by preaching the economic benefits to the population that is created by the deregulation of the alcohol trade which allows the grocery stores and other stores like bookstores to sell beer and apply for liquor licenses. The author argues that this although beneficial for the populace in the terms of job creation and economic benefit will harm the health of the population in the long run.  The different chronic diseases that are promoted by alcohol use and the risk of other diseases like cardiovascular diseases that are increased using alcohol will harm the community economically so the benefit is only temporary. The ignoring of the glaring issue will not make it easier to bear for the government and will harm the population so the movement to increase availability of alcohol needs to be stopped for the benefit of the citizens as the health risks that the deregulation will bring will be negated by the harm the will be caused to the population.

Do you agree or disagree with the author? Why or why not?

In my opinion the author should not judge the government for their effort to increase economic benefit of the region and the availability of employment because the health issues that the author is concerned about is mostly created by the people who use and abuse alcohol frequently and the easy availability of the alcohol cannot be blamed for the culture of the region that promote the use of alcohol and it is made socially acceptable (Thompson, 1990). The accessibility of alcohol is not such a big issue as the author makes it out to be. The acceptability of alcohol that made the government think of using it to benefit a greater part of the population cannot be blamed as the root of the problem of potential health hazards lie in the cultural standards that make the use of alcohol in social occasions acceptable. Due to this the custom is to blame for the diseases and not the alcohol. The easy availability of alcohol makes it easier for people to get access to alcohol but the culture is what makes the m seek out the alcohol. Therefore, the author is wrong in putting the blame on the authorities for all the wrongs when they are only partially responsible and they are only trying to make economic benefit from a trend that is already riddling the society. The acceptability of alcohol began before the deregulation took place so the social acceptance of alcohol cannot be blamed on the government and the legal reform that is caused by the government (Neuberger and DiMartini, 2008).  One cannot be blamed for taking advantage of situation that already exists and the effort of the government is a positive one as the trend is being used by the government to benefit the population that is already immersed in the destructive habit.

The content shared by the author relates to the course as the effect of the move made by the government is evident on the public health. Therefore, the deregulation of the liquor licensing and the sales of alcohol is part of the concern that is part of greater picture where the benefit to the populace made by the move can be compared against the harms and the balanced (Nakaya, 2008). For this reason, the deregulation of the alcohol trade and the economic benefits that are preached by the government are directly opposite to the public health perspective of the matter where the health of the populace is adversely affected by the move made by the government. Consequently, the subject matter of the article and the debate that is based on the benefits to the population and the demerits and disservice to the heath of the population is directly related to the matter of the health issues that might arise in the population as result of the move made by the government (Mace and Rabins, 2011).
The course material is directed toward the social trends and habits that are detrimental to the individual health of the citizens and the health of the population. Therefore, the topic and the argument that is promoted by the author is relevant to the course material as the public health is the main issue or concern that is raised by the author. The different diseases that might be caused by the consumptions of alcohol are based on the overall health matters and thus are related to the course and apt for discussion under the course.  The relevance of the material to the course contents is thus proved and the direct relation that makes the discussion appropriate for the course is also presented.

Will addressing the issue(s) outlined by the author lead to improvements for individuals? For the health care system? Both? How? Do some people stand to benefit while others lose out? Please explain.

The issue that is outlined by the author will directly impact upon the economic condition of many as the employability rate of the people will rise and the people will benefit. But the issue if addressed in the way the author outlines will lead to improvements of the lives of the individuals as the risk of diseases that are caused by use of alcohol will decrease and will enable many people to live healthy and longer lives that will affect their medical expenses and that of the state in appositive way (Global status report, 2004). Therefore, the health care system will benefit as the number of population that are affected by chronic and other diseases will decrease and the expenditure to care for the population will decrease. Therefore, a part of the population will benefit from the resolving of the issues if it is done in the way the author suggested. But the benefit will not extend to the people who will benefit from the deregulation like the grocery stores and other establishments who will see huge increase in sales from the sale of alcohol. The economic benefit that would have led to significant increase in the quality of living for them will be negated. Thus, the benefit will not extend to all the people and some part of the population who would have been employed will remain unemployed and unable to live a healthy life (Agarwal and Seitz, 2001). Some part of the population will benefit from the moves while the others will lose out if the supposed problem is addressed in the way the author suggested.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger.
Have questions? Connect with us on WhatsApp
Hello! How may I assist you? ...
Click to start chatting...