Prohibition.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When Sushi has done an equivalent amount of damage to people throughout history, maybe I will listen to the argument that Sushi consumption leading to mercury poisoning is more prevalent than a drunk person accidently damaging themselves or someone else.

Irrelevant. The past is a sunk cost. What actually matters in my decision-making process (or yours, or anyone else's) is what the effects of each option would be.

If people, all people, just stayed away from alcohol altogether; if they just avoided it from birth onwards, then I can assure you, domestic violence would be lowered, ARNDs would never occur, road-side fatalities would fall (no, you don't need to have a BAC of 0.05 or over for road-side accidents to occur), accidental deaths as a pedestrian (with whatever BAC) would be avoided, you wouldn't ever have a hang-over, you wouldn't ever "lose your booze" (as funny as that may seem).

This is not within the spectrum of my options available. Here are the general categories I have to choose from:

- I don't drink at all. Everyone else does what they do.
- I drink responsibly. Everyone else does what they do.
- I abuse alcohol. Everyone else does what they do.

Notice that "I don't drink at all, and neither does anyone else" is not one of the options that I can choose from.

Yes, I realise that the majority of these things are the indirect result of alcohol abuse.

Yes, so they're irrelevant to me, since I don't abuse alcohol.

Well if no one drank alcohol to begin with, (angry drunks and happy drunks inclusive), then no one would be able to abuse it anyway. I realise that this is probably never going to happen, and I realise that this is "unrealistic". But I've never suggested otherwise. Maybe there isn't really a solution.

You haven't suggested that it could neceessarily happen, but you keep on alluding to the prospect of it happening somehow having some sort of bearing on people's individual choices.

But how is it such a mental leap for anyone to see that if no one drank, if everyone just put aside their own fun for just a second, then no one would ever get hurt because of it?

I don't know, but I think it's somewhat more of a mental leap than the idea that impossible things are irrelevant, which is something that you apparently have trouble with.

I have listed statistics about the detrimental effects of alcohol on page 9 (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/73445-prohibition-9.html). Amongst these statistics is the fact that the economic cost of alcohol abuse outweighs the economic benefit of moderate alcohol consumption. Well, great. I know that there are benefits to moderate alcohol consumption, but gee, when it costs more to deal with the effects of alcohol abuse you really have to wonder whether it actually is worth it.

Yes, it is worth it, because I consume alcohol responsibly (thus gaining the benefits) while not abusing it (thus avoiding the detrimental effects).

And moderation versus abuse aside, is there even a single person on this thread who has never abused alcohol? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like the majority of you are saying that there is nothing wrong with abusing alcohol if you had fun doing it.

I sure didn't say that. I think it would be fair to say that restricting alcohol to the point where abuse would be impossible would be an unjustified restriction on personal freedom, though.

This masochistic tendency to trade pain for pleasure, where it is somehow justified by saying that "you had fun so it's okay" really doesn't work. Especially when there are various instances that someone who is only mildly intoxicated could actually harm another person; not just themselves. Like driving, for example. Or even walking home. No, I am not being paranoid about the risks associated - instead, I think most people on here are entirely apathetic.

I attribute this to other factors:

- most people here actually enjoy a drink and see no need to eliminate alcohol.
- most people here place a value on liberty and recognize the constraint on it that prohibiting alcohol would represent (not to mention the fact that prohibition tends to be ineffective and harmful in its own right anyhow). It sure seems like you don't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What does that do to my liver? Since I usually don't drink more than two or three beers (depends on size), it becomes more of a health drink than a lethal toxin.

I care because I know for a fact that so many problems with the world would be subdued or even removed if alcohol just wasn't consumed to begin with.

My grandmother lived to be 87 years old. She drank a beer or two every single day of her life for years, and her only problem was Alzheimers, which she fought against for the better part of a decade before succumbing to it. At her funeral, everyone who was old enough had a can of her favorite beer (Bud Light) in her honor. And everyone in my family is convinced the beer is what kept her going as long as she did. She even had an old news paper article that never came off of her fridge that was about how drinking beer can help you live longer.

Benjamin Franklin said "Take counsel in wine..."

 

[leahrachelle]

What does that do to my liver? Since I usually don't drink more than two or three beers (depends on size), it becomes more of a health drink than a lethal toxin.


My grandmother lived to be 87 years old. She drank a beer or two every single day of her life for years, and her only problem was Alzheimers, which she fought against for the better part of a decade before succumbing to it. At her funeral, everyone who was old enough had a can of her favorite beer (Bud Light) in her honor. And everyone in my family is convinced the beer is what kept her going as long as she did. She even had an old news paper article that never came off of her fridge that was about how drinking beer can help you live longer.

Benjamin Franklin said "Take counsel in wine..."

You're assuming that, though. Maybe she would have lived longer without it, and maybe she wouldn't have had Alzheimers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're assuming that, though. Maybe she would have lived longer without it, and maybe she wouldn't have had Alzheimers.

Moderate beer consumption is shown to possibly also help with Alzheimers.

 

[leahrachelle]

Moderate beer consumption is shown to possibly also help with Alzheimers.

The key word is possibly and you still don't know if she would have been better off without it.
Also, I don't consider a beer a day to be moderate.

 

[DarkSun]

I'm bored. So I'll reply to this stuff now.

Irrelevant. The past is a sunk cost. What actually matters in my decision-making process (or yours, or anyone else's) is what the effects of each option would be.

Mhm. And if I disagree with that decision-making process am I allowed to voice that disagreement?

And if I did voice that disagreement, would I be impinging on others' rights?

This is not within the spectrum of my options available. Here are the general categories I have to choose from:

- I don't drink at all. Everyone else does what they do.
- I drink responsibly. Everyone else does what they do.
- I abuse alcohol. Everyone else does what they do.

Notice that "I don't drink at all, and neither does anyone else" is not one of the options that I can choose from.

You'll also notice that the last (non-existent) option goes against everything I've said throughout this thread?

I was suggesting that people should choose not to drink at all. If no one chose to drink, and they were okay with this -- then all problems associated with alcohol would be eliminated without any restriction to personal liberty.

Unfortunately, this isn't ever going to happen any time soon. For one, people just have too much fun drinking to look at things from the bigger picture. So with that in mind, there is no solution that will completely work.

What I wasn't suggesting, though, was that I force people not to drink because I think it's a bad idea. Do you understand? I don't understand why this is such a "mental hurdle" for you. :angel2:

Yes, so they're irrelevant to me, since I don't abuse alcohol.

Even though it is irrelevant to you now, for what I was proposing to work, you would also have to be a part of it.

You haven't suggested that it could neceessarily happen, but you keep on alluding to the prospect of it happening somehow having some sort of bearing on people's individual choices.

Are you suggesting that the choices of other people don't have an effect on the individual?

I don't know, but I think it's somewhat more of a mental leap than the idea that impossible things are irrelevant, which is something that you apparently have trouble with.

You're assuming that the problem is with me? Well thanks.

And the risks associated with alcohol are not impossible, or otherwise they wouldn't exist. So I don't see where you're coming from here.

Yes, it is worth it, because I consume alcohol responsibly (thus gaining the benefits) while not abusing it (thus avoiding the detrimental effects).

Well, then for you, there is no risk of detrimental effects.

But your choice to drink, even the slightest amount, could have a bearing on the choices of others' who could potentially come to abuse the drink.

There's that, and I find it immoral to drink something which has taken so many lives. I also disagree with the idea of creating a pseudo-reality to move away from your real one with drugs. If we can't control our minds without the need to foul them up, then we're a really sad lot indeed. If you disagree with this mentality, then there's really nothing else I can do to persuade my point.

I sure didn't say that. I think it would be fair to say that restricting alcohol to the point where abuse would be impossible would be an unjustified restriction on personal freedom, though.


I attribute this to other factors:

- most people here actually enjoy a drink and see no need to eliminate alcohol.
- most people here place a value on liberty and recognize the constraint on it that prohibiting alcohol would represent (not to mention the fact that prohibition tends to be ineffective and harmful in its own right anyhow). It sure seems like you don't.

If you think I don't value personal freedom, then I'm sorry, but you've been misreading everything I've said.

Oh, look, someone just jumped onto MSN.

I'll finish this by saying that you smell really badly. :yes:

Sayonara.

 

[DarkSun]

Don't you think people would just find another way to get their kicks? So really, we would have the same problems, and/or new ones. Just another substance would be causing it.
Or, like with prohibition here in the states, people would start their own moonshine businesses and sell the stuff illegally. Then it would be just like marijuana: everyone would do it anyways, there would just be legal consequences as well.
I'm sure it would deter a number of people from drinking, but...not enough to really fix the problems, imho :sarcastic

There is a difference between prohibition and what I was suggesting. But thank you for your input.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!


Why, be this Juice the growth of God, who dare
Blaspheme the twisted tendril as a Snare?
A Blessing, we should use it, should we not?
And if a Curse--why, then, Who set it there?"