Over here in Europe (at least in Germany) you can buy as much Gin as you like in every supermarket - if you're over 18. I don't know if we have higher alcohol abuse numbers than countries with stricter laws but I doubt it. Does anyone have internationally comparable numbers?

EDIT: forgot: it's very cheap. If I remember correctly, you can get a one litre bottle for < 10 EUR - certainly not the best there is but "good enough" to get drunk as f* - even with little or no money

It's cheap in much of the US too. As little as $7 for a liter of 80 proof in my state (liquor regulation varies by state).

A liter of Smirnoff is $17.

Children and youth is a key part of the GP, the younger you are addicted to something the worse off you are in terms of quitting and the more damage it's doing. Drugs with significant brain damage accompanying heavy use (like alcohol) are also going to double-fuck you by adding the bonus challenge of doing so with lower IQ, executive control, etc.

It takes a lot less gin as well, since kids have such a smaller body mass than adults.

I wouldn't drink the stuff today, but in college I remember we were buying Mr Boston and Zhenka vodka for about $8 per 1.75l. That's pretty close to a few cents a shot.

People did tend to look a little like Hogarths Gin Street on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

Speaking as a alcoholic with some sobriety, those laws were little more than a speed bump when I was drinking. I drank as both a child and a homeless guy with little problem.

I'm not saying those laws shouldn't exist, but they serve as a source of revenue, not as something that protects the public.

Alcoholism requires some sort of emotional trauma or personality disorder to be present in order to manifest itself. Alcoholics are self-medicating for mental issues that could be solved by therapy or other interventions. The availability of alcohol and other drugs is not the driving factor behind addiction.

While you're correct about availability, the rest of your statement is absurdly reductive as well as incorrect.

I literally have struggled to come up with an appropriate question that addresses the several different misconceptions about your statement, so I'll just go with this: what?

How is anything you stated remotely analogous to what is in the article.

That doesn't answer anything.