Alpha Centauri Forums
Non-SMAC related
Should Alcohol be abolished?
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
Non-SMAC related
Should Alcohol be abolished?
|
| Author | Topic: Should Alcohol be abolished? |
| Frodo83 |
posted 05-25-99 11:17 AM ET  
Can anyone name any positive effects of alcohol? Why shouldn't it be illeagal? It's no less dangerous than marijuana. I know it won't be outlawed, but should it? |
| DanS |
posted 05-25-99 11:22 AM ET
Didn't we already try that once? |
| Roland |
posted 05-25-99 11:27 AM ET
Actually, it's more dangerous than marijuana... that's why marijuana should be legalised... |
| umbra1 |
posted 05-25-99 11:29 AM ET
"Should Alcohol be abolished?" No. "Can anyone name any positive effects of alcohol?" It's a lot of fun. "It's no less dangerous than marijuana" That's an arguement for the legalisation of marijuana, not for the criminalistion of alcohol. Bottom Line: If you don't like something, or if you think that something is dangerous THEN DON'T DO IT... Just leave the rest of us alone, FFS ! |
| GaryD |
posted 05-25-99 11:56 AM ET
In moderate quantities it is relaxing, lowers stress. Studies suggest that moderate intake is beneficial to health. In other words, a little of what you fancy does you good. As in all things, balance is the key. (He says falling down again). |
| DanS |
posted 05-25-99 12:30 PM ET
Roland: I agree that marijuana should be legalized, but don't agree that alcohol is more dangerous than *hic* marijuana. Marijuana persists in the body much longer than *hic* alcohol (thank heavens--I would have serious alcohol *hic* build-up  ). The effects, while less acute than alcohol's *hic*, are disturbing. Loss of ambition is only *hic* one negative consequence of long-term use.Alcohol used in moderation *hic* does lower stress. |
| Spoe |
posted 05-25-99 01:56 PM ET
Are there not studies that link drinking a small amount(1 glass or so) of red wine daily to increased cardiovascular health? Granted that, to my knowledge, they have not proven causality, only a correlation. |
| JohnIII |
posted 05-25-99 02:00 PM ET
Could the same effect be achieved with grape juice? John III |
| GaryD |
posted 05-25-99 02:09 PM ET
No you can't fall over in a stupor with grape juice. |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-25-99 02:12 PM ET
Positive effects of alcohol: 1. Relieves stress, sometimes. 2. A glass of wine a day is good for the system. Negative effects of alcohol: 1. Irreversible liver damage. 2. Loss of Judgement, which leads to 3. Drunk Driving, and 4. Alcohol-related violence. 5. Bad smell. 6. Hangovers. 7. Disturbing public behaviour. 8. Being a pest to everyone around you. 9. Increased risk for cancer. 10. Increased risk for heart disease. 11. Increased risk of impotence. 12. Etc. It's an easy choice, innit? |
| JohnIII |
posted 05-25-99 02:14 PM ET
Yeah, don't ban it! John III |
| GaryD |
posted 05-25-99 02:14 PM ET
Ah ! But the positive effects were from taking in a small amount regularly. The negative effects from taking in a lot fairly suddenly, and far too often. |
| JohnIII |
posted 05-25-99 02:15 PM ET
"the positive effects were from taking in a small amount regularly" Which positive effects? John III |
| Spoe |
posted 05-25-99 02:47 PM ET
Uh, John III: quote: |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-25-99 02:53 PM ET
"Ah ! But the positive effects were from taking in a small amount regularly. The negative effects from taking in a lot fairly suddenly, and far too often." 1. The latter is more common. 2. Those who have the genetically inherited disease known as Alcoholism get addicted to alcohol, and go from the former to the latter against their will. 3. People tend to think The positive effects increase with greater use. In other words, lots of peole drink more to relieve stress and then regress into depression. Oooh. Let me add some more problems: 13. Leads to depressions. 14. Conformly leads to more suicides. 15. Accidental deaths. |
| Spoe |
posted 05-25-99 02:57 PM ET
"Those who have the genetically inherited disease known as Alcoholism get addicted to alcohol, and go from the former to the latter against their will." Some people have an extreme allergic reaction to peanuts but most do not. Therefore we should ban peanut butter? I don't think so. |
| GaryD |
posted 05-25-99 03:06 PM ET
YES You should ban peanut butter if you're going to breathe anywhere near me ! |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-25-99 03:09 PM ET
Is peanut allergy life-threatening? |
| Spoe |
posted 05-25-99 03:11 PM ET
Most definately, Hugo. |
| JohnIII |
posted 05-25-99 03:20 PM ET
As are most nut allergies. John III |
| Bishop |
posted 05-25-99 03:37 PM ET
And moose bites... |
| Bishop |
posted 05-25-99 03:38 PM ET
My uncle was bitten by a moose once... |
| JohnIII |
posted 05-25-99 03:42 PM ET
And throat-slashing allergies... John III |
| Mcerion |
posted 05-25-99 03:55 PM ET
Maybe we need to resurrect Carrie Nation. That will take care of that pesky alcohol problem. It worked before, right? |
| Frodo83 |
posted 05-25-99 05:33 PM ET
Let's say it is true that ingesting small amounts of alcohol daily is healthy. Now, is there anyone who ingests a small amount of alcohol daily for their health? If so, speak up. This argument appears to be useless to me because alcohol has so many negative bodily effects compared to this one positive effect. Does anyone remember when cigarettes were supposedly good for you, back in the fifties? (After every meal, to "aid digestion"). Hardly anyone without remarkable self-control with a taste for alcohol can stand to drink it in small amounts. Remember, alcohol is an addictive drug. You want to keep taking it until you pass out. Which many people do. Roland: It's probably true that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. Saying that, because of this, marijuana should be legal doesn't make much sense. The truth is that if marijuana is illegal, alcohol should be as well. True, alcohol makes many people feel better and reduces stress. But I'm sure that people can find a way to feel good without needing drugs! One reason it's so hard to give up alcohol is tradition. People have been drinking it for ages and ages. It's the world's most popular narcotic. I'm sure it's hard to convince yourself to stop when so many other people are doing it. Denial plays a big part in alcoholism. Nobody wants to admit when they have a problem. I know that alcohol won't be abolished. It's been tried before, with no success. The question is whether it should be. |
| SnowFire |
posted 05-25-99 09:28 PM ET
Spoe: Examine HR's list. You're absolutely right that a small amount of wine is good for cardiovascular health. I'm sure antifreeze would be too, since that could get the circulartion going even better. But the negative effects of BOTH of them far outweigh the positives. In any case, unless we all join the Hive or the Believers, actually prohibiting alcohol would be difficult at best. If anyone can come up with a method that prevents all alcohol from coming into an area, still allows it for scientific purposes, and doesn't cause a black market in it, I'm all far it. Until then, raise taxes on it and use the moeny to pay for anti-alcohol posters to hang in bars. |
| Spoe |
posted 05-25-99 09:37 PM ET
To answer the original question: no. It should no be banned. And(in the US at least) there are plenty of signs in bars that already warn of the health risks, etc. |
| CarniveaN |
posted 05-25-99 09:46 PM ET
my two cents... Just because a few people behave like idiots and mis-use alcohol, does not mean that the majority should be punished. In other words, no I do not think it should be banned. It's the same argument with guns in the States. Every once in a while a few idiots shoot themselves, and people want to outlaw guns. ------- Carny |
| Roland |
posted 05-26-99 03:49 AM ET
Roland: It's probably true that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. Saying that, because of this, marijuana should be legal doesn't make much sense. The truth is that if marijuana is illegal, alcohol should be as well. It makes a lot of sense. It's about how we handle drugs or addictions in general. People might get addicted on Alcohol, Marihuana, junk food, gambling, some extreme sports, pharmaceuticals etc. If you try to oppress addictions by law, all you get is a black market and organised crime. Therefore, drugs should be in the responsibility of the individual. Only when addictions cannot be controlled like with heroine and maybe cocaine, the benefit of outlawing them might outweigh the drawbacks. With alcohol, marihuana etc, it definately does not. Dan: I agree that marijuana should be legalized, but don't agree that alcohol is more dangerous than *hic* marijuana... Marihuana used in moderation will not have those effects. The addictive power of both drugs is the same if not that of alcohol is stronger. The damage to the body is definately higher with alcohol. You can drink yourself to death in one or two hours (a friend of mine came pretty close to that - bloody idiot), but try that with smoking marihuana... |
| Mcerion |
posted 05-26-99 05:33 AM ET
Prohibition in the 20's gave the Mafia, through bootlegging, an iron fist in the USA's policies for years and possibly caused the illegal election and the subsequent assassination of President Kennedy. There were also gang wars for the control of the illegal liquor market. Many innocent people died as a result of these warring gang families. Now the Drug War (drug prohibition) is strengthing a whole new breed of organized criminals. Turf wars over control of the drug market take place regularly in our streets and innocents are being caught in the crossfire. These new Crime Lords have enormous amounts of money and therefore influence. The damage to the country is incalculable. You cannot legislate morality. People must be allowed to make up their own minds. The Law is there to keep the peace and protect property. The drug laws are doing neither. |
| GaryD |
posted 05-26-99 06:44 AM ET
Frodo83 : Occasionally I attempt to drink a small amount of alcohol each day for health reasons, but the practice doesn't last too long as I have no need for that much alcohol and just end up forgetting. But that isn't the point is it ? The point is that if you do drink moderately then it is good for you, not that you should force yourself to as if it were a medicine. I do not believe that your comparison with tobacco is a legitimate one. Alcohol has been around for ages and were there problems on the scale that tobacco has they would be blatantly obvious by now. I think I am right in saying that a majority of smokers suffer some health deficit traceable back to their habit, whilst the majority of alcohol drinkers suffer no such health problems. Besides I don't believe I am alone when I say that I have never wanted to keep drinking until I pass out. If there are those with this problem then it is a physical/mental problem they have, and not a problem with the substance they use (alcohol). Are you not overstressing your case ? Snowfire: I trust you are joking about the antifreeze. You are not seriously suggesting that any research has shown its ingestion is good for you, are you ? The fact is that there are no negative effects of moderate alcohol intake for the vast, vast, majority of people. There are only the benefits. Moderation in everything, and everything (well almost everything) in moderation. |
| Roland |
posted 05-26-99 06:51 AM ET
Not to forget the taste of a good wine or beer... and the refreshment factor... "Alkohoool Well, if those lines describe you, you do have a problem... even if you do not understand'em... |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-26-99 06:55 AM ET
Mcerion: Yes, Anti-Alcohol Legislation would probably increase crime. So, let's legalise murder, and we'll see a dramatic drop in crime rates! Or Hard drugs! Or theft! Or rape! Crime rates would drop to zero if all crime was legal! It doesn't work. Because the government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens. As I see it, alcohol legislation fits right in there. |
| Roland |
posted 05-26-99 07:04 AM ET
No, it definately does NOT fit in there. Murder/rape/theft etc: protecting a person against another person by punishing the murderer/rapist/thief etc Now, it might fit that nanny-state idea that people have to be forced to their own good, but don't ignore this difference. |
| 4Horses |
posted 05-26-99 07:29 AM ET
Abolishing alcohol? You guys are really grasping at straws trying to find a topic aren't you? |
| MikeH II |
posted 05-26-99 07:32 AM ET
Ah this old chesnut. Should alcohol be made illegal? No. I agree with Roland the choice to take drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) should be up to the individual. In principle. In practice some drugs are so addictive that they are hard to use recreationally without becoming addicted (for the majority of users) and thus causing social problems. I would say that those were Crack, Heroin and Nicotine (the most addictive substance known to man) but the health effects of Tobacco are a lot less obvious and immediate than those of the harder drugs. You can still function reasonably efficiently with a nicotine addiction. Plus if you had your nicotine administered through a less harsh method than a cigarette it might be OK. How about increasing the doses in nicotine gum to levels where it gives you the same hit a cigarette does. You'd remove a lot of the health risk. |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-26-99 02:34 PM ET
Tobacco and Alcohol might take longer to kill you, but they definately will. And they are as addictive as some Drugs. |
| SnowFire |
posted 05-26-99 04:24 PM ET
"Snowfire: I trust you are joking about the antifreeze. You are not seriously suggesting that any research has shown its ingestion is good for you, are you?" I haven't any research, but knowing how antifreeze is, I'd think it might be good for the circulation. Of course it'd also kill the person, which is why I don't have any studies to back this up. But I'm sure there are plenty of other good analogies- bleach is the cure for AIDS and many, many bacteria & viruses. Unfortunately it is the cure for human life as well. I'd guess gasoline is another blood thinner and could help people in danger of heart attacks as well. Same analogy. "The fact is that there are no negative effects of moderate alcohol intake for the vast, vast, majority of people. There are only the benefits." No negative effects? Each drink of alcohol kills brain cells. Brain cells don't grow back. Liver cells die too, in greater numbers, though they do grow back. Furhtermore, I don't care if it was only 2 social drinks at the dinner party, if he crashes his car into me afterwards, as far as I'm concerned, I was killed because of alcohol, especially if it was an easily avoidable accident. I mean, read HR's list again. One small benefit in exchange for being a risk to the rest of society? No. Actually, I think I do have a good idea on what to do with alcohol. Something needs to be put into all legally sold alcohol that causes massive skin lesions (temporarily, of course... say, maybe for only a few weeks after the binge) so everyone can see the sorry drunk for what he is. When that starts occuring, all those sex-appeal based ads are going to lose effectiveness really quickly. |
| Mcerion |
posted 05-26-99 06:26 PM ET
Hugo Rune, in a way I think you are helping to prove my point. Murder, rape, and theft have all been illegal since the dawn of civilization. For murder, the punishment has almost always been the death penalty. Yet people still commit these crimes on a daily basis. It is obvious that the law doesn't prevent these crimes, it simply punishes them. People have and always will make their own choices even in the most draconian of societies. More laws are not the answer. We should educate our people better so that they will make better and more informed choices. |
| Spoe |
posted 05-26-99 06:58 PM ET
"Brain cells don't grow back." Recent research suggest that this is not true and that adults do grow new neurons. Check the May(IIRC) SciAm. |
| Ronbo |
posted 05-26-99 07:37 PM ET
Hugo, You state in your last post that alcohol will kill you. Please cite your sources. While it is true that alcoholism will kill you, that is not the same as drinking alcohol occasionally. Over the course of a year, I may have 20 glasses of wine and three mixed drinks. This hardly makes me an alcoholic. I have never seen any studies that have linked moderate alcohol consumption to increased health risks. Also, as I do not drive, the issue of drinking while intoxicated is a non-issue for me. |
| TheHelperMonkey |
posted 05-26-99 08:05 PM ET
As far sa I can see, HR is being naive to the fact that illegalizing alchohol would never work. It didn't work in the 20's and it won't work now. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad for you, the fact is that a lot of people drink, and a lot of people won't stop drinking if you tell them it's wrong. |
| Chancellor AoYoS |
posted 05-26-99 08:18 PM ET
There would be riots if they tried to ban alcohol. The US would possibly face another civil war, and over what, alcohol? Thats a negative view of what would happened if they illegalized alcohol. |
| SnowFire |
posted 05-26-99 08:41 PM ET
Ronbo: Let's put it this way. Every day, you take risks. Do I drive through the streets to get to work, for instance. Each time you do that, there is x% that something bad will happen, like a fender-bender, a crazed driver crashing into you, a traffic helicopter falling from the sky on your car, etc. Now, if I you decide to drive to work with one hand tied behind your back, that x% of something bad happens goes up quite a bit, doesn't it? The lack of an extra hand means you can't turn the car as fast as you should in an emergency. When you drink alcohol, that x% of something bad happens goes up exponentially. And don't say that responsible drinkers won't drive- they aren't the concern; it's the irresponsible ones who get good people killed. Yes, alcohol will not directly kill you. The Law of Averages will instead. Spoe: I was trying to imply some sort of permanent downside. Well, I go off to the site, thinking "there goes one argument, only 12 left." Well, it seems that your article wasn't up in the May issue, but this short was (emphasis mine in parts)... ***** Diabetes, high blood pressure, smoking and heavy drinking can have ominous consequences for the brain in old age, according to a report in Stroke. Charles DeCarli of the University of Kansas found that health risks of men in their middle years were associated with stroke and reduced brain volume when the men reached their 70s. Reduction in brain size and damage to the brain's "white matter" are natural consequences of aging, but the risk factors--especially high blood pressure--seem to have sped up the process, accounting for up to 15 percent of the detectable brain disease. Check it out here for confirmation, doubting Thomases. I checked the June, May, April, and March issues online, and I didn't find anything on what you referred to (brain regrowth). Perhaps it's only in the print edition (I figured that they wouldn't want to give the ENTIRE magazine away for free, if they like their jobs). |
| Spoe |
posted 05-26-99 08:55 PM ET
Snowfire: That's heavy drinking you refer to. Heavy sugar intake can be just a damaging, so should we ban that too? In you previous post you specifically stated, "Each drink of alcohol kills brain cells."; I was responding to that and the implied health threats to light drinkers. "...I don't care if it was only 2 social drinks at the dinner party, if he crashes his car into me afterwards." Highly debatable. 2 drinks at a dinner party are likely to be washed out of the system by the time the guy leaves(unless it's an awful short part). The accepted figure is that 1 drink, be it a mixed drink, a 12 oz beer, or a glass of wine(all contain similar quanitities of acohol) is metabolized in about an hour. After that you don't have a measurable quantity of alcohol in your system. |
| Mcerion |
posted 05-27-99 12:11 AM ET
I'm going to try a different tack on this argument. Potato chips are bad for you. As far as I know they aren't good for you in any way other than they taste good. Should we ban potato chips? |
| Roland |
posted 05-27-99 04:09 AM ET
No, we should ban all food. It can make you fat, which leads to strokes etc etc etc. What do you say ? In moderate quantities it's not bad ? No, people are so irresponsible, they will eat themselves to death, we have to ban it all together! |
| DCA |
posted 05-27-99 04:54 AM ET
Yeah, I think the problems of modern society can all be traced back to the fact that we simply don't ban enough stuff. I mean, look at people! Stumbling around, doing all sorts of dangerous things that in no way adds to the productivity of our society. Alcohol, cigarettes, fast-food, unprotected sex, parachuting, cars, sunbathing, marijuana, not wearing enough clothes in the winter, visiting disease-infested foreign countries, etc, etc !!! Why do we continue to allow this folly? It should all be forbidden! Yup, society will sort itself out eventually - if we just turn our people into robots! Robots I say, and death to those damn humans that only mess things up anyway. So: Society doesn't own the individual, and has no right to insist that people should live according to what it defines as 'positive'. Whether or not alcohol is harmful is irrelevant - the aims of society should be to discover and publish the effects of alcohol, drugs and whatnot, and then leave the individual to draw his or her own conclusions. We don't need the state to live our lives for us. DCA, |
| GaryD |
posted 05-27-99 05:22 AM ET
Well I'm glad to say I'm not short of brain nor liver cells. Of course I can't speak for the rest of you guys.
|
| Roland |
posted 05-27-99 05:39 AM ET
Gary, I've been through several diets. Longest and most successful brought my weight down from 93kg to 74kg; now I'm back at 81kg and I'm taking a serious look at my suggestion! Or at my digestion ? |
| Ronbo |
posted 05-27-99 08:01 AM ET
Roland, Re: Dieting Have you taken a look at the Atkins Diet? I've lost about 16 kilos in less than three months on the diet, with another 3 or so to go. |
| Frodo83 |
posted 05-27-99 08:53 AM ET
So far, nobody has said that they are anything more than a moderate drinker. Most people have also said that only a very small minority of alcohol drinkers ingest alcohol for an extreme. Chancellor AoYoS says that there would be riots if alcohol was banned. I don't disagree with this. But who's rioting? The minority of alcoholics? Or the majority, the moderate drinkers, which, since they supposedly don't really need alcohol, wouldn't riot if it was taken from them. If anyone who has spoken against the idea of outlawing alcohol does not drink alcohol, please speak up now. What I would like to know is...why do people want alcohol? To me, it doesn't seem like it's worth it. Taking it for your health is a rather odd idea, because of what it does to your liver, among other things. Alcohol is an addictive drug. People who drink alcohol WANT MORE. And they invent excuses as to why. Roland, you want marijuana legalised, but why? Is it so that you can legally take it? By the way, GaryD, you can't really tell if your brain cells are dying by the millions. |
| Bishop |
posted 05-27-99 10:55 AM ET
"Should alcohol be abolished ?" Noooooooooo. Bishop |
| MikeH II |
posted 05-27-99 11:12 AM ET
I used to drink about 60 units a week (at least) when I was at Uni (about 30 pints) which was nothing unusual. Now I have cut that down to about 20-30 depending on what's going on but. I regard my previous levels as medium-heavy drinking but my present level is a concious effort to drink less than my peers. |
| Saras |
posted 05-27-99 11:13 AM ET
Damn, I'll have to agree with a Martian. Frodo - why do you want to interfere in peoples' business? |
| Rex Little |
posted 05-27-99 11:40 AM ET
Frodo: I drink virtually no alcohol (maybe 3-4 glasses of wine a year). I haven't used marijuana in at least 25 years. I have never used cocaine or heroin, and never would under any circumstances. But it pisses me off immensely that marijuana and other drugs are illegal, and I'd feel the same way if that happened with alcohol. Why? Because IT'S MY LIFE!! Nobody has the right to tell me what I can put into my own body in an attempt to make myself happy, or miserable, or even dead. If I violate someone else's rights, that's another story. If I drive drunk, or go hunting and shoot another hunter because I was so stoned I thought he was a deer, then by all means lock me up. But until and unless I endanger someone else, it's my life. "Beware of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors--and miss!" - Lazarus Long |
| Picker |
posted 05-27-99 12:26 PM ET
I am a less than moderate drinker, I go out drinking once or twice every month and rarely get drunk. But I would riot if they took it away. There are times when I enjoy going out and getting ripped. I ussually dont drink much but sometimes... |
| SnowFire |
posted 05-27-99 02:07 PM ET
"If anyone who has spoken against the idea of outlawing alcohol does not drink alcohol" Okay, I'm speaking now. I'm all against alcohol, but I made no illusions early on that I'm against outlawing it, merely making it difficult and annoying to get. In any case, I've also read (somewhere) that each drink of alcohol does kill brain cells. Surely not as bad as on bingers, but that is an at least semi-permaneant result of drinking, even light drinking. And once again, the Law of Averages. Perhaps those two drinks, by the time the person leaves, leaves the driver at only .1 BAL. Considering the number of people driving like that in a country our size, and the number of other people on the roads for them to crash into, people are going to die. All because of light drinking, even not counting all the accidents that would have happened alcohol or not. |
| Spoe |
posted 05-27-99 02:53 PM ET
1 drink is completely metabolized in about an hour. That means that there is no alcohol left in the system at that point(or a completely unmeasurable amount). Something on the order of 0.0000001% BAL, which would in no way impair driving skill. A person having two drinks over the course of a dinner party won't even approach 0.10% BAL, let alone be left with it afterwards. Anyway, go ahead, take it away. I make my own. ;P |
| jsorense |
posted 05-27-99 03:40 PM ET
Spoe has really put his finger on the problem with any suggestion of prohibiting alcohol: the stuff is just too easy to produce. Beer and wine practically make themselves. (It gets a little more complicated if you actually want it to taste good.) And when I did survey work in the mountains of eastern Kentucky, there was many a hollow that exhibited the remains of moonshining. No, unless you can somehow annul the biochemistry that produces alcohol then any legislation prohibiting its manufacture and use will fail. |
| GaryD |
posted 05-28-99 05:26 AM ET
I think that, even if there were not riots there would be something damned near, for the same reasons as put forward by Rex Little. (He says, with a few less brains cells than he had yesterday, and thinking it was a good exchange.) |
| MikeH II |
posted 05-28-99 05:59 AM ET
There would be a massive increase in crime as well just like in the prohibition. If people want something illegal, someone will make a fortune selling it to them. |
| Roland |
posted 05-28-99 06:57 AM ET
Mike: I used to drink about 60 units a week (at least) when I was at Uni (about 30 pints) "Units" ? LOL... how much is such a unit ? 30 pints makes about 17 liters ? ronbo: Have you taken a look at the Atkins Diet? No. How does this one work ? With the method I used, I lost about 1-1,5 kg/week... the bigger your starting weight, the bigger the loss at the beginning... Frodo: If anyone who has spoken against the idea of outlawing alcohol does not drink alcohol, please speak up now. What I would like to know is...why do people want alcohol? To me, it doesn't seem like it's worth it. Well, depending on the week, I might drink 3-10 beers (1 beer=1/2 liter) or 1-2 bottles of wine (1 bottle = 0,7 liters). Harder drinks very rarely. Alcohol is an addictive drug. People who drink alcohol WANT MORE. And they invent excuses as to why. The addiction depends on the amount, which is different for every individual. My moderate drinking habits have been the same for about 10 years which is my entire "drinker career"... Roland, you want marijuana legalised, but why? Is it so that you can legally take it? No, I don't do dope. If I would, well, it's essentially decriminalised for the consumer here, so it's rather meaningless. The reasons are: |
| Frodo83 |
posted 05-28-99 10:50 AM ET
Ok, so outlawing alcohol in its present state would be unrealistic. But comparing alcohol to everything that has any form of negative effect, from television to potato chips, is not something I really understand. Potato chips, for example, are unhealthy, like lots of things, but that's not a reason to outlaw them. I never suggested outlawing alcohol only because it was unhealthy. That's just one negative side effect of alcohol; it's very unhealthy. Television is addictive, for some people, just like alcohol, but that's not a reason to outlaw television, because it's not physically dangerous. As Hugo pointed out, alcohol has a lot of bad side effects. Comparing outlawing alcohol and outlawing guns is more realistic. But while alcohol and guns can both cause death, the reason guns are legal (i think) is for citizens to protect themselves against a possible despotic government. Alcohol, however, doesn't really have a good reason to exist. Lots of people have said that they don't need alcohol, they just like it. But it doesn't have very many benefical effects. In fact, it has almost none. I still believe that people in general are attracted to alcohol because it is addictive. Roland has said that the choice to take drugs should be up to the individual. But with drugs, you aren't left with much of a choice, thanks to the addictive elements found within. Even if the people on this forum have the self-control to refrain from drinking alcohol if they decide not to, that situation does not neccesarily apply to a large amount of people. If it was so easy, I don't think that rehabilitation would be necessary for some folks. Roland also says: Well, if alcohol were to be abolished, it would be because of its tendency to indirectly cause bodily injury, and not only because it can be detrimental. Television, etc. can't cause physical accidents (unless you perhaps toss a TV at someone Anything that's been so far compared to alcohol in terms of abolishment does not hold all the negative effects that Alcohol does, only about one or two of them, which makes alcohol more dangerous than any of these. |
| GaryD |
posted 05-28-99 10:58 AM ET
You know ? I don't think we're even on the same wavelength Frodo83. For me the comparison with potato crisps is not such an unreasonable one. But to compare with gun control ?!? Naw ! You're teasing aren't you ? Now I'll drink to that |
| DanS |
posted 05-28-99 11:13 AM ET
"2) The illegality supports the black market and thereby helps the dealers of hard drugs in several ways (in revenue, recruiting dealers and users, detracting the police...)" This is an important aspect of this discussion. Also, it criminalizes a significant portion of society. Many normally law-abiding citizens smoke dope, and even if you don't arrest them, it puts them outside the law in their own minds, and makes them respect legal authority less. That is why I take the opposite approach to Frodo83. I say that we ought to lower the legal drinking age to 18 (for those in the US). How many of us went through college with fake IDs? My alias was "Mick Simms." He didn't look anything like me, but everybody just laughed at the ID and let me into the bar/club. The point is that using a fake ID is criminal behavior, however harmless. Btw, full disclosure time--my great-grandmother was a bootlegger of bathtub gin during prohibition. |
| DanS |
posted 05-28-99 11:15 AM ET
I think Olestra should be a required ingredient in all junk foods. |
| Frodo83 |
posted 05-28-99 03:29 PM ET
I don't agree with the idea of legalizing potentially dangerous materials in the name of preventing corruption. That seems to say "Let's just get rid of all our laws, because it will be impossible to enforce them." After all, if you can lower drinking age to 18, who's to say you can't lower it to 16, or 14? A whole lot of teenagers drink alcohol anyway; let's just make it legal so that they're not lawbreakers. Say that, since alcohol is legal, marijuana should be legal as well. Then, since marijuana is legal, why shouldn't LSD be legal? Or heroin, cocaine, crack...after all, it should be the citizen's choice to take or not to take these drugs. Making them illegal is a restriction of freedom! Right? That's the impression I'm getting. Maybe it's unrealistic, but I can see it happening. |
| Rex Little |
posted 05-28-99 03:55 PM ET
Frodo: Read my post again. That's exactly what I said: All drugs should be legal for adults, because each of us owns his/her own life. The dent that legalization would make in crime and corruption is a happy side effect, but not in itself a justification. The same principle applies to the legal age for drinking (or smoking dope, if that were to become legal). Age limits are based on the presumption that kids are not yet fully responsible for their own behavior, and therefore don't have all the same rights as adults. We may disagree on the exact place to draw the line, but how many people are criminalized by a given age limit is irrelevant. |
| DanS |
posted 05-28-99 04:07 PM ET
"That seems to say 'Let's just get rid of all our laws, because it will be impossible to enforce them.' After all, if you can lower drinking age to 18, who's to say you can't lower it to 16, or 14?" Good point, maybe they shouldn't have an age limit at all. I picked 18 mostly because it's the age when you get to vote, become an adult, can be drafted, etc. I think it's pretty reasonable, though. "Then, since marijuana is legal, why shouldn't LSD be legal? Or heroin, cocaine, crack...after all, it should be the citizen's choice to take or not to take these drugs." Because LSD, heroin, cocaine, and crack are some serious hard-core drugs. Marijuana and alcohol aren't, although they have their problems. Anyway, it is the citizen's choice to take or not to take these drugs, laws or not. I would just rather see law-abiding citizens rather than a horde of criminals, if it doesn't harm society to a great degree in other ways. It's not giving up on the situation, it's a matter of living to fight another day on more important issues. If you want people to obey the laws on important things, they need to be law abiders on the small things. Choose your battles carefully, or nobody will respect the laws. |
| DanS |
posted 05-28-99 04:11 PM ET
"but how many people are criminalized by a given age limit is irrelevant" Au contraire: it is not irrelevant, because we want these people to productive, law-abiding members of society in the future. It does have an effect. |
| Raven of Despair |
posted 05-28-99 04:21 PM ET
YES!! All junk food must use olestra! Ugh! My favorite quote from the olestra market tests: "Well, it gave me some diarrhea, but I'll still eat it." I think that you could slap "Low-fat" on buffalo chips and people would eat them. As for moderate drinking: yes, it does happen. Often on Friday evenings after work, I will meet people for a couple of pints. Some will have one, some will have two. Then we all go our separate ways. |
| Spoe |
posted 05-28-99 04:49 PM ET
Actually, I've seen a couple studies that suggest a large part of the whole diarrhea connection to Ollestra is a placebo effect related to the publicity. |
| bene4 |
posted 05-28-99 04:56 PM ET
Taking a look at the "Laws in Modern Democracy". First - we don't live in a true democracy Because of freedom of speech and freedom of association, special interest groups form that are made up of people who have similar interests. These special interest groups, if large enough, can affect the choices made by the elected citizens by claiming they represent "the will of the people". These are lobby groups, and they unbalance the "Representative Democracy" by the fact that they feed the most common opinion back into the system. Special Interest groups, Lobby Groups do not only draw their influence from the number of people they represent. A more important factor in the power a Lobby group is how much money it represents. The Tobacco and Alcohol lobby groups are very strong because they represent a huge amount of money. This means that no matter what the public opinion is, the chance that Alcohol and Tobacco are made illegal is very low. The fact that marijuana is illegal can also be traced back to lobby groups. Up until the early part of this century, Hemp (same family, less THC) and the whole family of plants were completely legal. Hemp made great rope. All the sailing vessels used it. Then, the petro-chemical industry developed nylon rope, that was obviously an inferior product to the hemp rope that had been in use for many years. The petro-chemical industry seized the oppurtunity of the drug-illegalization craze and made Marijuana out to be a bad critter. (this was just after one world war, I don't remember which, but beatnicks had something to do with it...). So Marijuana was illegalized, and Hemp was noted to look quite like it, and was severely restricted, and nobody grew it and we got stuck (in more ways that one, ever worked with it) with that yellow rope that sucked... I don't care whether the stuff stays legal or not. I don't drink, smoke or anything - I play computer games and stay awake. |
| Rex Little |
posted 05-28-99 04:56 PM ET
OK, "irrelevant" was perhaps a bad choice of words. The point I was trying to make was that I'm not saying "because some people break a particular law, that law should be repealed." However, now that I think about it, I do believe that if a [i]large percentage[/] of people habitually break a law, that's strong evidence that either: B) would apply to things like robbery, rape and murder; if, say, 20% of the people were doing stuff like that, we'd be one step away from total social collapse no matter how many laws you passed. The American experience with Prohibition was a pretty clear example of A). |
| DanS |
posted 05-28-99 05:39 PM ET
"there's something seriously wrong with the society that the law is helpless to fix" Laws can lead, but they cannot fix in any active sense of the word. |
| DanS |
posted 05-28-99 05:43 PM ET
"would apply to things like robbery, rape and murder; if, say, 20% of the people were doing stuff like that" No, our society wouldn't collapse, it would just be perverted. We would find a way to justify these things, since they would be "normal." For instance, think about ritual killings in Rome. Laws are supposed to be concensus instruments. They only have as much power as people think they do. |
| Frodo83 |
posted 05-28-99 10:34 PM ET
That's true. Perception is what matters when it comes to laws. Murder is considered a heinous crime nowadays in America, and so it is given a harsh penalty. Jaywalking, however, is looked upon as a minor crime, and the only penalty is a small fine. So, if killing could be considered acceptable in some areas, it seems that what should or shouldn't be illegal is just a matter of opinion. Rex Little: If people habitually break a law, all that tells you is that people habitually break a law. It's not necessarily stupid. People punch each other out all the time; does this mean that assault should be legal? I don't really think so. Is being unable to legally assault someone a violation of your freedom? Maybe so, but the law itself is benefical to society. I'm wondering, did anyone riot when marijuana was outlawed? Aren't all laws a restriction of the freedom to do whatever you want to? |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-29-99 05:03 AM ET
DanS: About the age 18- This is not the age you become adult, at least not in the US. (almost) everywhere else, a Juvenile can't be put in prison, but goes to special treatment homes or youth prisons. But not in the US. No, The US is one of the 5 countries that break human rights by executing juveniles. I ask you, how can a 17 year old be considered responsible enough for a murder, but not mature enough to vote? GaryD: Why Alcohol laws are more Aikin to gun control than to Laws agaist junk food? Look at the following statements. "I know I beat my wife, but I had eaten so many potato chips I don't remember anything." "He had eaten 3 hamburgers, but he decided to drive anyway, killing three." "Under heavy influence of French Fries, he decided to take out his gun and kill everyone around him." "They got her to eat 14 donuts, so she passed out, then they raped her." |
| k_shane |
posted 05-30-99 12:24 AM ET
Ever wonder where most fags meet at? Bars. Where do fags go to have fun? Gay Bars. So maybe if we cut down on alchohol, we can also cut down on the gay communities- take them off of this earth! I hope all fags DIE. |
| SnowFire |
posted 05-30-99 09:25 AM ET
k_shane, that is possibly the worst argument in favor of prohibition I've seen. If you really did want all "fags" to die, then you would keep the gay bars open so that gays can be subjected to the long list of bad things listed before that alcohol does to you. However, I think that people should have a right to live... In any case, it's a fine line. I want to put enough restrictions on alcohol that it's still safer to buy legally. In other words, I don't want to regulate alcohol so much that the stills do start turning again and a black market develops (because it's so hard/expensive to get legal alcohol), but rather push it to the point right before that happens. HR: LOL at your "alcohol" substitues. |
| SnowFire |
posted 05-30-99 03:07 PM ET
Perhaps I should clarify, just to make sure... I didn't want this to turn into an "I hate k_shane" contest again (not that I don't), so, even using his faulty premises, I tried to prove his stance incorrect. |
| DanS |
posted 05-30-99 09:03 PM ET
"So, if killing could be considered acceptable in some areas, it seems that what should or shouldn't be illegal is just a matter of opinion. That's the way I think it works. Laws aren't made by one person, they are made by the group in a democratic society. But even in an undemocratic society, laws that have no basis in what people think about them (i.e., if they aren't accepted by the majority), will not last longer, and most often shorter, than a couple of generations. We could go on to discuss jury nullification in the US, for instance, but I think you know where I'm coming from. "About the age 18- This is not the age you become adult, at least not in the US. (almost) everywhere else, a Juvenile can't be put in prison, but goes to special treatment Hmmm... Interesting question, but I wonder when the last juvenile was executed in the US. It just doesn't happen... ITYM executed for crimes committed while a juvenile. I'm no lawyer, but I think there's a culpability standard at work here, not a responsibility standard. Obviously, a juvenile is not as responsible as an adult. But if the juvenile knows what he's doing fully while committing the crime (as an adult would), he's just as culpable. The concept of culpability can be found elsewhere. An example would be the RC church's "age of reason" for committing sin (IIRC, it's age 8 or something). My point is that I don't find it disturbing to try a 17-year old as an adult. 14-year olds are a whole other kettle of fish. |
| trippin daily |
posted 05-30-99 09:30 PM ET
k_shane, all I have to ask you is how is it possible for you to even live on three braincells, none the less, have thoughts as well [although the thought is stupid (gay bashing)]? What did a gay person do so wrongly to you that would make you think that they deserved to be bashed as a group in general? I know several gay people, none of them are evil. I don't feel uncomfortable around them because I know that they know that I'm not gay, and they respect that. I, unlike you, realize that 99.99% of most people, regardless of their sexual preferance, will not rape another person. Is this your fear? Is this why you have so much hate towards them? Trippin Daily |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-31-99 07:58 AM ET
This is straight out of Amnesty International's Site: "5. Use of the Death Penalty Against Juveniles International human rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime being sentenced to death. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child all have provisions to this effect. More than 100 countries have laws specifically excluding the execution of juvenile offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of countries, however, continue to execute juvenile offenders. Six countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime - Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. The country which carried out the greatest number of known executions of juvenile offenders was the USA (10 since 1990). (Reference: Juveniles and the Death Penalty: Executions Worldwide since 1985, AI Index: ACT 50/02/98)" |
| DanS |
posted 05-31-99 10:46 AM ET
We're in such august company, so what's the problem? While I respect Amnesty International's opinion on this as well as many other things, I don't see anything wrong with executing an adult who did a very, very bad deed when they were 17 years old. Again, it's culpability. It takes some judgment to know if a juvenile is culpable, but normally the American justice system gets it right. But, really, we digress from the main point. I think if someone is 16 and they want a drink of beer, that's fine, especially if we use your standard. So let's use it. Old enough to be executed for murder, old enough to order a pint at the local drinking establishment. Fair enough? |
| Roland |
posted 05-31-99 11:05 AM ET
Regarding culpability: Isn't America one of the few countries executing mentally ill people as well ? It takes some judgment to know if a juvenile is culpable, but normally the American justice system gets it right. You shouldn't make jokes about such serious matters... which state was it which had recently reinstalled the death penalty, and of about 20 verdicts, about 10 have been found to be false later ? You know, the journalism students looking into those cases... |
| DanS |
posted 05-31-99 12:18 PM ET
Roland: no jokes, but I should clarify and restate... As we have capital punishment in the U.S., I see no reason why a 17-year old who is culpable in committing murder would be exempt from it. I do not support capital punishment. |
| DanS |
posted 05-31-99 12:25 PM ET
"Isn't America one of the few countries executing mentally ill people as well?" I think culpability is still the standard. Just last month in Virginia the sentence of a convicted murderer on death row was commuted to life in prison w/o parole because the governor believed the guy was mentally ill while committing the crime. Again, not to split verbal hairs, but if a person was culpable while committing the crime and participated competently in his own defense, whether or not he is now mentally ill is beside the point. |
| Hugo Rune |
posted 05-31-99 03:12 PM ET
Why is a Juvenile considered responsible enough to commit a murder but not to vote? In england, they consider eight-year olds responsible enough to commit murder. They don't execute them, at least. |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.
