|
Please read this thread entirely before posting, since the title is ambiguous and needs clarification.
I recently read the thread about the riot in Vancouver following their loss in the Stanley Cup.
Many of the posters in that thread claimed it wasn't a large percentage of the population starting trouble, but rather a small minority. They claim the riot grew because many of the rioters were drunk, and the situation escalated when these inebriated individuals, losing their sense of judgment, joined in on the rioting.
This lead me to think about an issue where it's the lives or livelihood of a few weighed against the enjoyment of the many.
The few, in this case, would be the officers and shop owners in downtown Vancouver at the moment. The cops are having to risk injury and possibly death in order to disperse the crowd, and the shop owners out there are going to have a bunch of smashed windows and vandalized property to clean up.
The many, in this case, would be the population of Vancouver that consumes alcohol. If alcohol was illegal, less of them would be drunk, and they would be less likely to participate in the riot and vandalize stuff.
So, how does our society weigh the benefits of the many vs the few? Well, one example would be to look at drunk driving.
Every year, thousands of people lose their lives because of alcohol-related automobile accidents. These accidents would be less likely to occur if alcohol was an illegal substance, because less people would have access to it in large quantities. And yet, Americans tried banning alcohol in the 1920's, and Prohibition was eventually revoked because of wide-spread disregard for the law.
So, this brings me to the point mentioned in the title of this thread: the American people, by having alcohol legal today, are essentially placing a price on our own heads. We are weighing the lives of the few (those that die to drunk drivers), against the enjoyment of the many (everybody that goes out to drink on a Friday night after work).
So how does it stack up?
Well, America currently has a population of 307,006,550 in 2009, according to the Census Bureau.
According to Gallup, 67% of Americans drank alcohol in 2008.
According to AlcoholAlert, there were a total of 13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008.
Therefore, with some simple math, each person that died due to drunk driving is worth 14,759 alcohol drinkers.
To sum this up in more layman terms, the life of each person in America is worth the freedom of 14,759 other people to enjoy and consume alcohol. In other words, the right of 14,759 people to enjoy alcoholic beverages is worth more than the life of one person.
Interesting to compare, isn't it?
Now, I'm not trying to condemn everyone who drinks alcohol. After all, the few who commit the felony of drunk driving are hardly representative of the majority of alcohol consumers, who use the drug responsibly. However, if alcohol were banned, the amount of alcohol-related traffic fatalities would drastically decrease. The question is, are we, as a people, willing to give up the pleasure of the many, for the lives of the few?
EDIT:
General Point:
This post isn't about whether our politicians should bring back Prohibition against the majority's will. That will only lead to an increased demand for black market alcohol, giving crime rings increased funding and such.
This post is about whether you as an individual would voluntarily give up the pleasure of drinking if it meant that there were less stupid people out there getting drunk and driving, and killing people.
Now, the obvious result according to the poll is that most people would NOT give up their drink to save some lives. However, I'm not sure whether this is what the voters truely believe, or whether this is because people misunderstood the poll to mean banning alcohol against the majority's will, leading to increased crime.
Travis, since you're reading this thread, could you wipe the poll, and make it a new one with the title as "Would you voluntarily give up drinking and vote to ban it, if it meant less drunk driving fatalities?"
Thanks.
EDIT 2:
Since people keep bringing this comparison of "if ur banning beer, WHY NOT JUST BAN CARS TOO LOLOLOKL", banning cars is fundamentally different to banning alcohol.
One is a vehicle that is essential to the lives of millions because they live in areas where public transportation is unavailable, and they need to get to places that are very far away on a daily basis. Try as you might, you're not going to be able to operate a public transportation system in a rural village that runs at the same efficiency as one in an urban area, at least not with current technology. Waiting 2 hours for a bus is unacceptable for many situations.
The other is a recreational drug that is NOT essential to the daily life of anybody.
In addition, very little people intentionally hit things while driving, hence why they're called automobile accidents.
On the other hand, anybody that steps behind the wheel, even after having a tiny bit of alcohol, is increasing the chances that they hit something by intentionally taking a drug that slows reflexes, lowers judgment, and inhibits senses before operating a car.
So really, any drunk driving "accidents" are not really accidents at all, they are the direct, intentional consequence of someone drinking alcohol and driving. There's a reason why drunk drivers are sometimes charged with murder instead of just manslaughter, while anybody that kills someone else in a traffic accident is not.
Banning cars and banning alcohol are not the same thing.
EDIT 3:
General Point 2:
I've been hearing the same arguments over and over even though I already addressed them, so here is the final response to them all:
1. Banning alcohol will cause more crime - Not if a large majority voluntarily gives it up and votes to ban it. Then, only a small minority will be on the black market looking for a drink, so there will only be a relatively small rise in crime funding.
2. I don't drink and drive, so I don't see why I should give up drinking - If you, and a large majority of your peers gives up responsible alcohol usage, you make it much, much harder for some dumbass on a weekend to get drunk and kill someone with his/her car. So, while not PERSONALLY saving lives, you are saving lives by not giving an idiot a tool to be more idiotic.
From this point on, I will not be responding to any of the above arguments unless something new and compelling is brought up. I apologize if you made another point and it was lost in the sea of posts, just remind me again and I'll respond to it.
Poll: Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths?No, I wouldn't. (520) 66% Yes, I would. (262) 34% 782 total votes Your vote: Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths? (Vote): Yes, I would.
(Vote): No, I wouldn't.
|
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well.
|
Nope. I'm not a bad drunk so it wouldn't make a difference if I stopped.
|
I never drink never will. This has nothing to do with it, but i guess it is a plus.
|
What Mango said.
The only thing I found interesting thing about this thread was that 67% of Americans drank in 2008. How was that figure determined? Link me up to that if you get a chance.
Obviously I voted no on the subject. I'm a drinking enthusiast and love vodka as much as I love SC2.
Edit: You, as well as many others should consider alternative methods to reducing drunk driving. I'm a responsible drinker, so I'd be in favor of tighter regulation and more stringent policies that punish drunk driving and manslaughter. Those are way better answers than the one proposed.
|
if they banned alcohol, how would anyone get laid?
sayin no on this one.
|
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well.
rofl
Honestly, I don't give a damn about alcohol. But, it's not the alcohol that kill people, or make people do stupid shit.
It's about you not having control over yourself.
Smoke bud, this shit will never happen.
|
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to condemn everyone who drinks alcohol. After all, the few who commit the felony of drunk driving are hardly representative of the majority of alcohol consumers, who use the drug responsibly. However, if alcohol were banned, the amount of alcohol-related traffic fatalities would drastically decrease. The question is, are we, as a people, willing to give up the pleasure of the many, for the lives of the few?
This sounds like a pushpoll, and bandwagon propaganda.
Drug prohibition doesn't do anything to help safe drug use. You can see it in prohibition and the modern drug war.
If getting into a taxi obviously drunk was enough to get arrested you think that people would drive drunk LESS?
|
Any background on where AlcoholAlert gets their numbers from? It is always interesting to see how "alcohol related" is defined when looking at numbers like that, and often times the numbers are grossly inflated.
|
On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well.
Hahaha, yeah. And it brought with it the rise of organized crime, which in its heyday, was arguably worse than the problem presented here anyway.
All in all, I voted no out of the general idea that I'm not comfortable giving up rights that I am completely responsible with simply because a minority of others are not.
|
On June 16 2011 15:33 sCfO20 wrote:rofl Honestly, I don't give a damn about alcohol. But, it's not the alcohol that kill people, or make people do stupid shit. It's about you not having control over yourself. Smoke bud, this shit will never happen.
Only people with right minds should be allowed to drink. Should be the same for driving, having children, owning guns, etc. But that'll never happen because people value freedom over common sense most of the time.
|
youre confusing drinking some alcohol with getting yourself extremely drunk and then getting into a car. If you drink alcohol but you are never drunk than this doesn't work for you.
|
|
|
I don't understand how banning something like alcohol would stop this from happening. Making something like alcohol go to an unregulated black market wouldn't stop these alcoholic related deaths. Even if it did, the death and strain this would put back on law enforcement and gang violence would be equally bad. I rather people just be educated not to drink and drive and use public transportation when they are intoxicated.
I said no to the poll, I don't abuse alcohol and then drink and drive. I have enough personal responsibility to not become that statistic.
|
How many people died in traffic accidents when it wasn't their fault? Should we ban private cars and save lives? :O
|
No way is banning alcohol ever going to be good, maybe tax it higher or something, make it less accessable.
By the way, that's less than 0.01% of people
Instead of blaming alcohol, try banning Vancouver from losing hockey
No but really teach them it's just a game...
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qe1oT.jpg)
They tried to make alcohol illegal in the United States of America. You should read up a little on how that turned out. This post makes me feel like the OP thinks it 100% Alcohols fault these(I know he doesn't just makes me feel like he does) PEOPLE could not control themselves.
|
I don't drink already and believe alcohol to be one of the worst things in our culture today. It destroys the ability to think properly or have control over your own body, and there is actual proof to back it up.
It rips people apart, ruins lives, kills people by use alone (that liver can only take so much, you only have the one), is a factor a crime, sexual badshitingeneral, ALL SORTS of messed up shit come from that stupid worthless drug.
Seriously, why drink when you can just smoke a bowl? Nobody's ever smoked a bowl, and then gone and beaten his wife, nobody has died or killed somebody while significantly impaired driving while baked, nobody has died from toking, and so many other things.....Really now that I think about it, the only time anybody EVER dies because of weed is because it's illegal and it's a part of the criminal world.
|
It just needs to be taxed more.
|
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously...
|
Harsher regulation and education are what's needed. History has shown us that prohibition can lead to more problems than it solves. The problem is that most people are so infatuated with alcohol and the pleasures it brings them that they're willing to turn a blind eye to the facts, or the facts are never presented to them.
Governments should be encouraging vigorous campaigning a la cigarettes. Not with the goal of banning alcohol, but with the goal of educating people about its risks and how it damages society.
|
On June 16 2011 15:42 N3rV[Green] wrote:
I don't drink already and believe alcohol to be one of the worst things in our culture today. It destroys the ability to think properly or have control over your own body, and there is actual proof to back it up.
It rips people apart, ruins lives, kills people by use alone (that liver can only take so much, you only have the one), is a factor a crime, sexual badshitingeneral, ALL SORTS of messed up shit come from that stupid worthless drug.
Seriously, why drink when you can just smoke a bowl? Nobody's ever smoked a bowl, and then gone and beaten his wife, nobody has died or killed somebody while significantly impaired driving while baked, nobody has died from toking, and so many other things.....Really now that I think about it, the only time anybody EVER dies because of weed is because it's illegal and it's a part of the criminal world.
This whole bold paragraph is just blatantly false. Bad people are bad people whether they are sober, drunk, or just smoked a ton of weed.
Infact, I once got into an altercation with someone who hit their significant other while we were smoking a bowl.
|
On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously...
Pretty much.
However, making it illegal doesn't solve the problem. It will be just as bad if not worse in terms of loss of life.
|
These problems wouldn't exist if people actually listened to the advertisements:
Drink responsibly.
If that means not drinking at all, then don't drink if you're a fucking retard.
|
sadly, people will always want an escape.. be it alcohol, drugs, etc.. it will always be something - at least with alcohol we can tax it (versus illegal drugs) and have our officers equipped to immediately test for inebriation when they pull someone over
plus, most alcohol use is reasonable. i, personally, drink maybe one or two beers a day just because it makes me have less background noise in my head (i like to drink a little while i play video games actually, it makes my reaction time quicker because i don't overthink everything)
|
On June 16 2011 15:42 N3rV[Green] wrote:
I don't drink already and believe alcohol to be one of the worst things in our culture today. It destroys the ability to think properly or have control over your own body, and there is actual proof to back it up.
It rips people apart, ruins lives, kills people by use alone (that liver can only take so much, you only have the one), is a factor a crime, sexual bad shiting general, ALL SORTS of messed up shit come from that stupid worthless drug.
Seriously, why drink when you can just smoke a bowl? Nobody's ever smoked a bowl, and then gone and beaten his wife, nobody has died or killed somebody while significantly impaired driving while baked, nobody has died from toking, and so many other things.....Really now that I think about it, the only time anybody EVER dies because of weed is because it's illegal and it's a part of the criminal world.
I want you to rethink what u just posted... Both Alcohol and Weed are drugs of a sort. they are both inhibitors, They both effect you're brain and thought process, motor function, etc etc. Weed can affect people in more sever ways than Alcohol, and the same can be said for alcohol. I personally know a couple people that when they smoke a fat bowl they become retarded in the fullest of meanings. you couldn't even hold a conversation with these people because they can't put 5 words together that make any sense. also driving a vehicle under the influence of Weed is just as dangerous as alcohol for some people not all but some. Your logic that no body ever dies of weed is flawed. people die from things all the time and weed never has been the EXACT cause of death to people who are not allergic I can guarantee you that it has been a part of decisions that lead to a death or maiming of another person or themselves.
|
I'd be fine with Alcohol outlawed. It'll never happen, though.
However, making it illegal doesn't solve the problem. It will be just as bad if not worse in terms of loss of life.
You have nothing factual to base this claim on.
|
On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously... Well, alcohol per se is neither good or bad. Wine has been suggested to have positive health impact with moderate consumption for example (or healthy people only drink wine).
Results: Wine drinking was significantly associated with higher IQ, higher parental educational level, and higher socioeconomic status. Beer drinking was significantly associated with lower scores on the same variables. Population studies have observed a J curve association between wine consumption and the risk of heart disease. This means that heavy drinkers have an elevated risk, while moderate drinkers (at most two five-ounce servings of wine per day) have a lower risk than non-drinkers. Studies have also found that moderate consumption of other alcoholic beverages may be cardioprotective, although the association is considerably stronger for wine.
Sources: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1102340, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine#Health_effects
edit: I also want to point out that banning cars would be better than banning alcohol because car accidents still happen without alcohol.
|
On June 16 2011 15:56 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:42 N3rV[Green] wrote:
I don't drink already and believe alcohol to be one of the worst things in our culture today. It destroys the ability to think properly or have control over your own body, and there is actual proof to back it up.
It rips people apart, ruins lives, kills people by use alone (that liver can only take so much, you only have the one), is a factor a crime, sexual bad shiting general, ALL SORTS of messed up shit come from that stupid worthless drug.
Seriously, why drink when you can just smoke a bowl? Nobody's ever smoked a bowl, and then gone and beaten his wife, nobody has died or killed somebody while significantly impaired driving while baked, nobody has died from toking, and so many other things.....Really now that I think about it, the only time anybody EVER dies because of weed is because it's illegal and it's a part of the criminal world.
I want you to rethink what u just posted... Both Alcohol and Weed are drugs of a sort. they are both inhibitors, They both effect you're brain and thought process, motor function, etc etc. Weed can affect people in more sever ways than Alcohol, and the same can be said for alcohol. I personally know a couple people that when they smoke a fat bowl they become retarded in the fullest of meanings. you couldn't even hold a conversation with these people because they can't put 5 words together that make any sense. also driving a vehicle under the influence of Weed is just as dangerous as alcohol for some people not all but some. Your logic that no body ever dies of weed is flawed. people die from things all the time and weed never has been the EXACT cause of death to people who are not allergic I can guarantee you that it has been a part of decisions that lead to a death or maiming of another person or themselves.
You know, lets also ban vending machines! More people die via vending machines than people who die via forest fires, but having a controlled fire during dry spells is banned almost everywhere. It is absurd, and really there is no reason to even have vending machines when a store does the same thing.
|
The alcohol related fatalities are probably symptomatic of some kind of mental malaise within the drinkers, and shows that people need to find healthy ways to cope with their problems. I'm sure some of those accidents were caused by careless party-goers, or poor judgment on a weekend after a few too many, but the alcohol itself isn't entirely at fault. If alcohol were prohibited, then I'm sure there would be new ways to self-medicate, or new forms of self-destructive and dangerous behavior.
Would a ban be effective? I think it might, since alcohol is an enjoyable, and easily consumable drug which has become irremediably tied with social culture. But I have a hard time believing that a ban would be justifiable. I think if it were a serious enough issue, then there would be more outcry, more legislation, or simply more of a reaction. I suppose people just implicitly agree that the benefits of having alcohol outweigh the potential dangers, and that the rules and regulations surrounding alcohol are at least sufficient.
|
I think just about everybody in Vancouver saw it coming but it is IMPOSSIBLE for police or any sort of law enforcement to deal with 120,000 fans in a relatively small area in a loss of that magnitude.
|
My counter question: would you campaign to legalize drugs if it would reduce gang violence, save lives and restore the people's trust in their police?
|
On June 16 2011 15:33 sCfO20 wrote:rofl Honestly, I don't give a damn about alcohol. But, it's not the alcohol that kill people, or make people do stupid shit. It's about you not having control over yourself. Smoke bud, this shit will never happen.
I agree with this guy, alcohol is not the problem, only a factor.
On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously...
lol mr judgemental
im sorry you've never enjoyed recreational alcohol
|
On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well.
WINNNNN
User was warned for this post
|
On June 16 2011 16:03 splcer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. WINNNNN
how is that "WINNNNNN" ?
the guy addressed it in his post if people bothered to read it
|
"However, if alcohol were banned, the amount of alcohol-related traffic fatalities would drastically decrease. "
HAHA
The New York Five Familys, the Chicago outfit and about a hundred more organizations say hello :D
Banning alcohol is like the biggest fuel the US could have given to organized crime back in the twenties thirties.
On June 16 2011 16:05 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 16:03 splcer wrote:On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. WINNNNN how is that "WINNNNNN" ? the guy addressed it in his post if people bothered to read it
Addressed it? Like, he stated the US did it, this is hardly addressing it
Regardless of this, i voted no.
|
Prohibition would cause much more trouble, just like Nazarid said. Drinking alcohol in general is not bad at all.
|
Voted no. By this logic none of us should drive since it causes a ton of vehicle related fatalities.
|
On June 16 2011 16:05 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 16:03 splcer wrote:On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. WINNNNN how is that "WINNNNNN" ? the guy addressed it in his post if people bothered to read it
Yeah, where did he address that?
|
On June 16 2011 15:57 Craton wrote:I'd be fine with Alcohol outlawed. It'll never happen, though. Show nested quote +However, making it illegal doesn't solve the problem. It will be just as bad if not worse in terms of loss of life. You have nothing factual to base this claim on.
1920's, prohibition, al capone, ring any bells?
|
On June 16 2011 16:03 splcer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. WINNNNN
edit: I think that no matter what is going on accidents will happen and people are going to die because of it if the government shuts something down then other problems will pop up. SHIT HAPPENS
|
The attitudes to drugs and alcohol are strangely confused in politics. I'm against alcohol being banned, simply because alcohol doesn't kill people, people do. Unlike guns, it doesn't even make it easier, it just makes you dumber. If a person is shitfaced, they should know enough not to drive. i have never, ever been in a condition where I thought I would trust myself behind the wheel of a car when I've obviously drunk too much. I refuse to believe that I have some kind of amazing self-restraint or common sense.
What the world needs is a great Japanese invention called a daiko. It's a taxi for you and your car - the taxi has two drivers in it. One drives your car behind the taxi, making sure your drunk self and your car gets home safely and legally. Works fine here, along with a practically zero alcohol tolerance for driving - seriously, you get banned and fined and face prison if you have a sip of alcohol before getting into a car. And considering the drinking culture here, with people regularly passed out on the streets on a weekend, they seem to be dealing well with drink-driving. People just need to stop being dicks.
|
X number of people drink alcohol, Y number of people die from alcohol related incidents. Should we ban alcohol?
X number of people drive cars, Y number of people die from car related incidents. Should we ban cars?
We can continue this line of thinking until almost everything we own gets banned. It's a flawed idea. Instead, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they don't hurt others. If you hurt other people, then you're punished for it. Don't preemptively punish the majority just because a small minority is irresponsible.
|
this is same, in a way as "guns don't kill people, people do"
instead of prohibiting people from doing something, education should enforce how one can become responsible of their actions. however, this doesn't get through many people and thats where it leads to unfortunate events.
i'll compare it to racism. a lot has changed since the 60's in the US, though racism is still around, it surely isn't as bad. like so, i think its more important to teach people how to think before acting, common sense, critical thinking, being in other person's shoes, etc.
at heart we humans are barbaric, better educational infrastructure could improve the rate of us being civilized.
its bad to take away something that majority enjoy and its the minority that fcks it up (this apply to MANY things). sometimes we have to get the good with the bad, we should try to get the least amount of bad and not give all of it up.
|
I wouldn't stop drinking if it meant saving lives, because I'm an intelligent human being capable of self-control. Alcohol doesn't cause the problems, a stupid fuckwit of a person mixed with Alcohol causes problems.
People need to stop using Alcohol as an excuse for their behaviors, it's their own fault for not being able to control themselves and I 100% agree it is unfair that these people cause the harm of others through accidents but I'd rather see drunk drivers hung or shot than having my freedoms even more restricted by a nanny government.
*edit The person above me probably summed it up better than my anger 
|
I might give up drinking if it meant less deaths...but ultimately it comes down to how many less deaths. If someone came to me and said, "if you stop drinking now, you have a 10% chance to save a life"...I would do it unless I REALLY didn't like the life.
But as the case is, if someone says, "if you stop drinking now you have a 0.001% chance of saving a life, and you are guaranteed to cost liquor store owners, restaurant owners, etc. thousands - or even tens of thousands - of dollars that you would have spent on liquor over the course of your life"...not happening.
|
On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously...
Have you ever gotten home from an 8 hour shift, kick back on the couch and open a cold one? Have you ever watched the game with a beer on Superbowl Sunday with your family and friends? It's the most relaxing thing in the world. Yes there are idiots that abuse it to the extent of riots and such but seriously, moderation is always key in everything you consume.
|
This discussion is silly. Nothing will change the habits of the people - they'll always be themselves.
|
On June 16 2011 16:08 Schnake wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 16:05 travis wrote:On June 16 2011 16:03 splcer wrote:On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. WINNNNN how is that "WINNNNNN" ? the guy addressed it in his post if people bothered to read it Yeah, where did he address that?
On June 16 2011 16:05 Geo.Rion wrote:
Addressed it? Like, he stated the US did it, this is hardly addressing it
Regardless of this, i voted no.
Where did he address it? The point of the entire post is addressing the worth of prohibition.
he says specifically in it:
And yet, Americans tried banning alcohol in the 1920's, and Prohibition was eventually revoked because of wide-spread disregard for the law.
Which is essentially saying that prohibition doesn't work. Which is why I say that MangoTango's post isn't "WINNNNN" when he is repeating what the guy already said in his post.
|
On June 16 2011 15:42 N3rV[Green] wrote:
I don't drink already and believe alcohol to be one of the worst things in our culture today. It destroys the ability to think properly or have control over your own body, and there is actual proof to back it up.
It rips people apart, ruins lives, kills people by use alone (that liver can only take so much, you only have the one), is a factor a crime, sexual badshitingeneral, ALL SORTS of messed up shit come from that stupid worthless drug.
Seriously, why drink when you can just smoke a bowl? Nobody's ever smoked a bowl, and then gone and beaten his wife, nobody has died or killed somebody while significantly impaired driving while baked, nobody has died from toking, and so many other things.....Really now that I think about it, the only time anybody EVER dies because of weed is because it's illegal and it's a part of the criminal world.
I highly doubt alcohol is the worst thing in our culture. I'd rate religion and tobacco over it any day. Tobacco kills way way way way way more people than alcohol, and it's probably one of the worse deaths, as if you die purely by smoking (in most cases it just cuts off 15 years or so of your life and you die by a heart attack or something), you're basically slowly strangling yourself to death over years of using.
Smoking weed isn't quite as nice if you wanna get pumped up and go out partying.. You'd just sit back in your sofa and chill.. No more babies would be born, and the world would collapse.
There are afaik no statistics on how many car accidents have been marijuana related, but I'd like to see your source for that statement. You need to smoke about 4 pounds to overdose and die, so you got that part right atleast.
|
On June 16 2011 16:12 Gnial wrote:
I might give up drinking if it meant less deaths...but ultimately it comes down to how many less deaths. If someone came to me and said, "if you stop drinking now, you have a 10% chance to save a life"...I would do it unless I REALLY didn't like the life.
But as the case is, if someone says, "if you stop drinking now you have a 0.001% chance of saving a life, and you are guaranteed to cost liquor store owners, restaurant owners, etc. thousands - or even tens of thousands - of dollars that you would have spent on liquor over the course of your life"...not happening.
...that would instead be spent in equal amount to other businesses. The money doesn't simply disappear. What about all the money the liquor store owners, restaurant owners, etc., take from other businesses? It's a net gain of zero.
|
I was coming into this thinking the thread would be filled with facetious arguments and unintelligible remarks about both sides of this issue. I was wrong, there are a lot of people who see this exactly as I do.
Alcohol isn't the enabler of this behavior. Humans do not turn into Mr. Hyde after drinking. Yes, alcoholism impairs judgement but it only allows behaviors that would have otherwise been repressed. They were still there. Very seldom is alcohol the only or a major reason for the stupidity and callous disregard for humanity of some people, especially those described here.
|
I haven't touched any drug in my life, and I don't think there should be any illegal drugs. Illegal drugs just makes more criminals, it does not prevent people from doing them.
|
It annoys me when people blame alcohol for their actions, I know it does have an effect on people and their judgement calls at times, my worst judgement calls have been just drinking too much and being hung over at worst and I've been drinking since I was 6 years old, I've only had 3 hang overs in my life time. I don't drink and drive, and I don't fight when I drink.
My parents taught us not to drink and drive at a young age and they said if they ever had even 1 beer or one little bit of alcohol and they wanted to go driving for any reason, that we are to hide the keys and not allow it, even if it is over the "legal limit."
Murder happens when people are sober too, what do we take away to remove murder? Murder rates for 16,442.
Within the Western world, nearly 90% of all murders are committed by males, with males also being the victims of 74.6% of murders
Order of most common reasons people are murdered.
#1: The domestic argument
#2: No apparent motive
#3: Money
#4: Revenge
#5: Alcohol and drugs
I got this from many sites. Alcohol is the 5th most common reason, but money is 3rd, so maybe we should ban money while we are at banning alcohol. How about marriage, we should only procreate when necessary instead? How about in 1960 the US population was about 180 million and now in 2011 it's about 365-380 million?
People need to stop other things for their crimes, there are times when we all commit crimes unintentionally, or intentionally and are fine with it, maybe people download music, which is a crime in most countries, and you listen to copywritten music which you shouldn't and is illegal, and you are fined for up to $100,000 USD if caught(Haven't heard a case of this happening but it is the fine.)
To conclude, no Alcohol should not be made illegal. Because it's the individuals who commit the crimes in most cases.
|
I think the Stanley Cup should be banned for making so many alcoholics upset.
Edit : On a serious note, I don't believe removing freedoms in general is a good idea just because less people would be hurt.
|
I don't really drink at all myself, but I don't think this would really solve the problem. Prohibition was tried before, and it didn't really help.
Despite that, I voted yes in the poll. I would give up drinking if it meant less deaths, but only if I knew for certain that it would mean less deaths. As it is, I don't really think it would.
What I think is that drunk driving laws should be more severe. Not necessarily prison time, but things like having your license revoked. If someone does it again despite that, then I think prison time is acceptable because the person refuses to stop endangering other people's lives and I don't want him/her on the street until he/she learns better.
|
On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously...
man i hope you dont drink soda.. like cola, sprite, pepsi.. whatever.. cause then you wouldnt be drinking poison.. you'd be drinking acid 
|
I am drunk at the moment, I admit. I do not believe that the prohibition of alcohol would be better overall for society. Alcohol causes many problems, similar to many other drugs, but it is a drug so ingrained in our society (similar to tobacco) that the immediate removal would be overall detrimental. I do think that people need a simple, and legal, escape from the tremors of every day life. Alcohol may be a relief that many people need. Maybe, over time, the overall use of alcohol could decrease. I don't think that could happen any time soon though.
We have to live with death every day and the restriction of alcohol use would probably promote other dangerous behavior. I am not saying alcohol is a good thing, because it is definitely not, but it does have it's uses in moderating society.
|
On June 16 2011 16:33 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously... man i hope you dont drink soda.. like cola, sprite, pepsi.. whatever.. cause then you wouldnt be drinking poison.. you'd be drinking acid
Not only acid, but acid infused with poisonous gas.
Edit : Also while we're making fun of that post: acid infused with poisonous gas and phenylalanine, a non-digestible sweetening additive that can cross the blood brain barrier as a painkiller and antidepressant.
How's that soda taste?
|
On June 16 2011 15:42 N3rV[Green] wrote:
I don't drink already and believe alcohol to be one of the worst things in our culture today. It destroys the ability to think properly or have control over your own body, and there is actual proof to back it up.
It rips people apart, ruins lives, kills people by use alone (that liver can only take so much, you only have the one), is a factor a crime, sexual badshitingeneral, ALL SORTS of messed up shit come from that stupid worthless drug.
Seriously, why drink when you can just smoke a bowl? Nobody's ever smoked a bowl, and then gone and beaten his wife, nobody has died or killed somebody while significantly impaired driving while baked, nobody has died from toking, and so many other things.....Really now that I think about it, the only time anybody EVER dies because of weed is because it's illegal and it's a part of the criminal world.
Just saying, I can drive quite well when intoxicated (to be fair, I've only driven smashed ONCE, and that was at 2AM on sidestreets so I never had to worry about other cars), yet I am an utterly terrible driver when baked. I mean I slam on the brakes at random times, feel like I'm going to crash into every car, it's really weird. I refuse to drive high because every time I have I've almost gotten into an accident.
|
I hate people who use alcohol as an excuse for any kind of negative behavior, whether it's pissing in someone's closet or killing someone over sports. Here's what it boils down to:
1) People should know their own tolerance levels unless they're new to drinking.
2) Alcohol really isn't a valid excuse for violent behavior. Chances are, if you're a violent drunk, there's more to it than just "the alcohol made me kill my wife and kid, I was possessed!"
3) Drinking alcohol is a choice, always.
Basically, alcohol doesn't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. We shouldn't ban alcohol because some dbags can't drink it responsibly. And we should NEVER allow alcohol to serve as an excuse for any kind of crime or misbehavior.
|
1. 6 billion dollars of tax revenue gone.
2. Probably even more than that spent on law enforcement.
3. Very likely even more death and violence than it already causes.
I can't see any positive results an alcohol ban could bring.
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
According to AlcoholAlert, there were a total of 13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008.
Therefore, with some simple math, each person that died due to drunk driving is worth 14,759 alcohol drinkers.
To sum this up in more layman terms, the life of each person in America is worth the freedom of 14,759 other people to enjoy and consume alcohol. In other words, the right of 14,759 people to enjoy alcoholic beverages is worth more than the life of one person.
Would an assumption that the vast majority of these deaths were the alcohol drinkers themselves be correct? I can't imagine anyone cares about drunk idiots dying from a nationwide perspective.
|
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
According to AlcoholAlert, there were a total of 13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008.
Good sir, I agree that alcohol is a huge burden to Western society, but I have an issue with your logic.
You argue that a minority of people are victims of other people's alcohol abuse. In the case of rioters vs police and shopkeepers, the two groups (the victims and the abusers) are mutually exclusive groups. However, in the case of motor vehicle fatalities, these two groups are not mutually exclusive.
How many of the above number were vehicle-pedestrian accidents, and how many were vehicle-vehicle accidents or vehicle-object accidents? Was it the pedestrian that was inebriated or the motor vehicle operator? And who actually died?
In an accident a drunk person is more likely to die than a sober person due to decreased lung function, a higher chance of vomiting, and that vomit blocking their airways if they become unconscious. A drunk pedestrian hit by a car will have a higher chance of dying than a sober pedestrian, as will a drunk driver in an accident between two vehicles.
Yes, it would suck if you were sober and just walking along at night, and a car driven by a drunk came out of nowhere, mounted the sidewalk and killed you. However, I suspect the death toll included many drunk people who were at fault as well, and the actual number of victims that died due to other people's alcohol abuse would only be a subset of the above.
|
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:Please read this thread entirely before posting, since the title is ambiguous and needs clarification.I recently read the thread about the riot in Vancouver following their loss in the Stanley Cup. Many of the posters in that thread claimed it wasn't a large percentage of the population starting trouble, but rather a small minority. They claim the riot grew because many of the rioters were drunk, and the situation escalated when these inebriated individuals, losing their sense of judgment, joined in on the rioting. This lead me to think about an issue where it's the lives or livelihood of a few weighed against the enjoyment of the many. The few, in this case, would be the officers and shop owners in downtown Vancouver at the moment. The cops are having to risk injury and possibly death in order to disperse the crowd, and the shop owners out there are going to have a bunch of smashed windows and vandalized property to clean up. The many, in this case, would be the population of Vancouver that consumes alcohol. If alcohol was illegal, less of them would be drunk, and they would be less likely to participate in the riot and vandalize stuff. So, how does our society weigh the benefits of the many vs the few? Well, one example would be to look at drunk driving. Every year, thousands of people lose their lives because of alcohol-related automobile accidents. These accidents would be less likely to occur if alcohol was an illegal substance, because less people would have access to it in large quantities. And yet, Americans tried banning alcohol in the 1920's, and Prohibition was eventually revoked because of wide-spread disregard for the law. So, this brings me to the point mentioned in the title of this thread: the American people, by having alcohol legal today, are essentially placing a price on our own heads. We are weighing the lives of the few (those that die to drunk drivers), against the enjoyment of the many (everybody that goes out to drink on a Friday night after work). So how does it stack up? Well, America currently has a population of 307,006,550 in 2009, according to the Census Bureau. According to Gallup, 67% of Americans drank alcohol in 2008. According to AlcoholAlert, there were a total of 13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008. Therefore, with some simple math, each person that died due to drunk driving is worth 14,759 alcohol drinkers. To sum this up in more layman terms, the life of each person in America is worth the freedom of 14,759 other people to enjoy and consume alcohol. In other words, the right of 14,759 people to enjoy alcoholic beverages is worth more than the life of one person. Interesting to compare, isn't it? You could never ban alcohol. Those that cause deaths because of their alcohol consumption are the few idiots in the bunch. Anyone can twist logic to their own reasoning, but in the end there is one cause and one effect. It isn't 14,759 per death. It is exactly ONE IDIOT how ever many deaths they cause. Now, I'm not trying to condemn everyone who drinks alcohol. After all, the few who commit the felony of drunk driving are hardly representative of the majority of alcohol consumers, who use the drug responsibly. However, if alcohol were banned, the amount of alcohol-related traffic fatalities would drastically decrease. The question is, are we, as a people, willing to give up the pleasure of the many, for the lives of the few? Poll: Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths?No, I wouldn't. (520) 66% Yes, I would. (262) 34% 782 total votes Your vote: Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths? (Vote): Yes, I would.
(Vote): No, I wouldn't.
User was warned for this post
|
Noble thoughts by the OP, but you cannot pass judgement on an activity or good (in this case, alcohol) by only weighing its negative effects on society. Tax revenue, consumer pleasure, and jobs in the industry are all factors to consider before giving the "Price of a Human Life in Alcohol."
|
Sometimes people like getting intoxicated. It's mind altering, it's fun. You can never stop people doing it.
Making it illegal won't stop people doing it, it will be like US prohibition all over again.
|
There's too many people for me to respond to everyone individually, but I'll try a couple and then make my general point at the end of this post.
On June 16 2011 15:32 BumbleB wrote:
Nope. I'm not a bad drunk so it wouldn't make a difference if I stopped.
It's not about whether you are personally a responsible alcohol user.
The fact is, if you and most other people in America voted to make alcohol illegal, it would make it harder for the idiots who aren't responsible users, and get drunk and drive, harder to get alcohol.
Would you be willing to give up the responsible use of alcohol to make sure less idiots out there can buy a case of beer, drink it, and go drive their car?
On June 16 2011 15:32 dyonehara wrote:
What Mango said.
The only thing I found interesting thing about this thread was that 67% of Americans drank in 2008. How was that figure determined? Link me up to that if you get a chance.
Obviously I voted no on the subject. I'm a drinking enthusiast and love vodka as much as I love SC2.
Edit: You, as well as many others should consider alternative methods to reducing drunk driving. I'm a responsible drinker, so I'd be in favor of tighter regulation and more stringent policies that punish drunk driving and manslaughter. Those are way better answers than the one proposed.
Gallup is a polling company. They're famous for their election polls.
Here's their alcohol usage poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141656/drinking-rate-edges-slightly-year-high.aspx
On June 16 2011 15:32 esla_sol wrote:
if they banned alcohol, how would anyone get laid?
sayin no on this one.
This is exactly why it's the pleasure of the many vs. the lives of the few.
By giving up alcohol, you make it harder for idiots to get out there and drive drunk. You also make it harder for you to score with girls.
On June 16 2011 15:33 sCfO20 wrote:rofl Honestly, I don't give a damn about alcohol. But, it's not the alcohol that kill people, or make people do stupid shit. It's about you not having control over yourself. Smoke bud, this shit will never happen.
I already mentioned that most alcohol drinkers use it responsibly. However, there are evidently thousands of cases a year where people decide to NOT use it responsibly, and get people killed.
Would you give up alcohol if it makes it harder for people to be stupid, and kill people?
On June 16 2011 15:33 LeperKahn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to condemn everyone who drinks alcohol. After all, the few who commit the felony of drunk driving are hardly representative of the majority of alcohol consumers, who use the drug responsibly. However, if alcohol were banned, the amount of alcohol-related traffic fatalities would drastically decrease. The question is, are we, as a people, willing to give up the pleasure of the many, for the lives of the few?
This sounds like a pushpoll, and bandwagon propaganda. Drug prohibition doesn't do anything to help safe drug use. You can see it in prohibition and the modern drug war. If getting into a taxi obviously drunk was enough to get arrested you think that people would drive drunk LESS?
This isn't about how to make alcohol users more responsible.
This is about how to make it harder for idiots who irresponsibly use alcohol to get drunk and drive.
Also, this isn't about what would happen if Prohibition happened against the majority's will. I'm asking, would you voluntarily give up alcohol, and vote to ban it, if it meant saving lives?
Prohibition didn't work out in the 1920s because of widespread disregard for the law. But, if most people today abided by a Prohibition law, then there would be very little rise in crime and illegal brewing.
On June 16 2011 15:34 BloodNinja wrote:
Any background on where AlcoholAlert gets their numbers from? It is always interesting to see how "alcohol related" is defined when looking at numbers like that, and often times the numbers are grossly inflated.
Is this an issue of numbers for you? For example, would you give up drinking if it meant saving 100,000 lives a year, but not if it only saved 13,000 or less people?
On June 16 2011 15:36 ribeye wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. Hahaha, yeah. And it brought with it the rise of organized crime, which in its heyday, was arguably worse than the problem presented here anyway. All in all, I voted no out of the general idea that I'm not comfortable giving up rights that I am completely responsible with simply because a minority of others are not.
There was a rise in crime because people were mostly against the law. If everyone voted for it, and voluntarily gave it up, nobody would be brewing in their bathtubs because nobody would be buying.
On June 16 2011 15:39 solidbebe wrote:
youre confusing drinking some alcohol with getting yourself extremely drunk and then getting into a car. If you drink alcohol but you are never drunk than this doesn't work for you.
This isn't about you personally being responsible while drinking.
The fact is, even if you never get drunk, there ARE people in the world who get drunk and drive. Would you give up alcohol and vote to make it illegal if it means these drunk idiots have a much harder time finding someone to sell them beer to get drunk off of?
On June 16 2011 15:39 Doko wrote:
Its political suicide.
Depends on what the people think. If everyone was for giving it up to save lives, it'd be a fine law to propose.
On June 16 2011 15:39 Demonace34 wrote:
I don't understand how banning something like alcohol would stop this from happening. Making something like alcohol go to an unregulated black market wouldn't stop these alcoholic related deaths. Even if it did, the death and strain this would put back on law enforcement and gang violence would be equally bad. I rather people just be educated not to drink and drive and use public transportation when they are intoxicated.
I said no to the poll, I don't abuse alcohol and then drink and drive. I have enough personal responsibility to not become that statistic.
Who's going to buy alcohol on the black market if everyone is giving this up voluntarily and voting ban it out of consideration to the lives it will save? I'm not talking about 1920s Prohibition, where nobody gave a shit about the law and everyone wanted to drink. I'm talking about voluntarily giving up drinking.
Also, people are already educated, for the most part. Every alcohol label tells you to drink responsibly. Everyone knows drunk driving is dangerous. Some people are just irresponsible, and will do it anyway.
On June 16 2011 15:40 Daray wrote:
How many people died in traffic accidents when it wasn't their fault? Should we ban private cars and save lives? :O
Most people cannot go about their daily lives without cars, especially if you live in the suburbs or countryside.
Most people CAN go about their daily lives without drinking alcohol.
People that can't go about their daily lives without a drink are called alcoholics.
On June 16 2011 15:41 Nazarid wrote:
They tried to make alcohol illegal in the United States of America. You should read up a little on how that turned out. This post makes me feel like the OP thinks it 100% Alcohols fault these(I know he doesn't just makes me feel like he does) PEOPLE could not control themselves.
Addressed this in my post. Maybe you should read up on it.
On June 16 2011 15:42 N3rV[Green] wrote:
I don't drink already and believe alcohol to be one of the worst things in our culture today. It destroys the ability to think properly or have control over your own body, and there is actual proof to back it up.
It rips people apart, ruins lives, kills people by use alone (that liver can only take so much, you only have the one), is a factor a crime, sexual badshitingeneral, ALL SORTS of messed up shit come from that stupid worthless drug.
Seriously, why drink when you can just smoke a bowl? Nobody's ever smoked a bowl, and then gone and beaten his wife, nobody has died or killed somebody while significantly impaired driving while baked, nobody has died from toking, and so many other things.....Really now that I think about it, the only time anybody EVER dies because of weed is because it's illegal and it's a part of the criminal world.
Nobody has ever had to smoke a gigantic bowl, then go drive somewhere either.
The reason you don't see weed related traffic fatalities is because everyone who uses weed knows it's illegal, so they only use it in private places and make sure to get sober before they go anywhere a cop might see them.
On June 16 2011 15:48 Swede wrote:
Harsher regulation and education are what's needed. History has shown us that prohibition can lead to more problems than it solves. The problem is that most people are so infatuated with alcohol and the pleasures it brings them that they're willing to turn a blind eye to the facts, or the facts are never presented to them.
Governments should be encouraging vigorous campaigning a la cigarettes. Not with the goal of banning alcohol, but with the goal of educating people about its risks and how it damages society.
Is there anybody that lives in the western world and doesn't know you can't drive well when drunk?
These drunk drivers aren't uneducated, they're irresponsible and reckless. There's a difference between not knowing something is dangerous, and knowing something is dangerous but doing it anyway.
And it's funny you bring up cigarettes. Nowadays, cigarettes basically tell you in giant letters on the packaging that they will kill you. Doesn't stop millions from smoking them anyway. These people aren't uneducated about the dangers.
On June 16 2011 16:01 KimJongChill wrote:
The alcohol related fatalities are probably symptomatic of some kind of mental malaise within the drinkers, and shows that people need to find healthy ways to cope with their problems. I'm sure some of those accidents were caused by careless party-goers, or poor judgment on a weekend after a few too many, but the alcohol itself isn't entirely at fault. If alcohol were prohibited, then I'm sure there would be new ways to self-medicate, or new forms of self-destructive and dangerous behavior.
Would a ban be effective? I think it might, since alcohol is an enjoyable, and easily consumable drug which has become irremediably tied with social culture. But I have a hard time believing that a ban would be justifiable. I think if it were a serious enough issue, then there would be more outcry, more legislation, or simply more of a reaction. I suppose people just implicitly agree that the benefits of having alcohol outweigh the potential dangers, and that the rules and regulations surrounding alcohol are at least sufficient.
I wouldn't say it's a symptom of a mental problem.
Plenty of people get DUIs. Celeberty DUIs are talked about in tabloids all the time. Are these people mentally in distress? No, they're just irresponsible.
And the argument that these people would replace alcohol with another drug is not accurate.
How many frat boys or drunk office workers on a Friday night would go get some Cocaine or Heroine if they couldn't find a drink?
On June 16 2011 16:02 Hypertension wrote:
My counter question: would you campaign to legalize drugs if it would reduce gang violence, save lives and restore the people's trust in their police?
Depends. How many drug related deaths would we have once people got easy access to hard drugs? IE, driving while under the influence of Heroine or Meth or LSD, something like that.
On June 16 2011 16:02 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:33 sCfO20 wrote:Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. rofl Honestly, I don't give a damn about alcohol. But, it's not the alcohol that kill people, or make people do stupid shit. It's about you not having control over yourself. Smoke bud, this shit will never happen. I agree with this guy, alcohol is not the problem, only a factor. Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously... lol mr judgemental im sorry you've never enjoyed recreational alcohol
Yes, alcohol is only a factor. Drunk retards being irresponsible is the root of the problem.
But, would you voluntarily give up your drink if it meant that those drunk retards out there won't be able to drink and drive either?
On June 16 2011 16:05 Geo.Rion wrote:"However, if alcohol were banned, the amount of alcohol-related traffic fatalities would drastically decrease. " HAHA The New York Five Familys, the Chicago outfit and about a hundred more organizations say hello :D Banning alcohol is like the biggest fuel the US could have given to organized crime back in the twenties thirties. Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 16:05 travis wrote:On June 16 2011 16:03 splcer wrote:On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well. WINNNNN how is that "WINNNNNN" ? the guy addressed it in his post if people bothered to read it Addressed it? Like, he stated the US did it, this is hardly addressing it Regardless of this, i voted no.
Read my earlier responses to this argument. If we're voluntarily banning it, organized crime will have noone to buy their bootleg beer, so they can't make money off it, so they can't grow bigger.
Also, I said prohibition was tried and due to widespread disregard for it, the law was revoked. What more detail do you want?
On June 16 2011 16:10 Sanctimonius wrote:
The attitudes to drugs and alcohol are strangely confused in politics. I'm against alcohol being banned, simply because alcohol doesn't kill people, people do. Unlike guns, it doesn't even make it easier, it just makes you dumber. If a person is shitfaced, they should know enough not to drive. i have never, ever been in a condition where I thought I would trust myself behind the wheel of a car when I've obviously drunk too much. I refuse to believe that I have some kind of amazing self-restraint or common sense.
What the world needs is a great Japanese invention called a daiko. It's a taxi for you and your car - the taxi has two drivers in it. One drives your car behind the taxi, making sure your drunk self and your car gets home safely and legally. Works fine here, along with a practically zero alcohol tolerance for driving - seriously, you get banned and fined and face prison if you have a sip of alcohol before getting into a car. And considering the drinking culture here, with people regularly passed out on the streets on a weekend, they seem to be dealing well with drink-driving. People just need to stop being dicks.
That's one other way to handle it. Instead of making it harder for dicks to get drunk, make it easier for drunk dicks to get home without driving.
However, the lower rate of drunk driving accidents in Japan probably also has something to do with car ownership levels.
Most people in Japan probably don't know a car. Most people in America probably do own cars. Hence, it's easier for drunk dicks to kill people in the USA because there are more drunk dicks with cars here.
On June 16 2011 16:10 Slithe wrote:
X number of people drink alcohol, Y number of people die from alcohol related incidents. Should we ban alcohol?
X number of people drive cars, Y number of people die from car related incidents. Should we ban cars?
We can continue this line of thinking until almost everything we own gets banned. It's a flawed idea. Instead, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they don't hurt others. If you hurt other people, then you're punished for it. Don't preemptively punish the majority just because a small minority is irresponsible.
This isn't about the government putting prohibition back on against our will.
It's about whether we, as responsible individuals, are willing to give up a portion of our pleasure (drinking), in order to ensure that a few irresponsible individuals cannot take our pleasure and kill people by using it recklessly.
The cars example I addressed earlier.
On June 16 2011 17:03 carbonaceous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
According to AlcoholAlert, there were a total of 13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008.
Good sir, I agree that alcohol is a huge burden to Western society, but I have an issue with your logic. You argue that a minority of people are victims of other people's alcohol abuse. In the case of rioters vs police and shopkeepers, the two groups (the victims and the abusers) are mutually exclusive groups. However, in the case of motor vehicle fatalities, these two groups are not mutually exclusive. How many of the above number were vehicle-pedestrian accidents, and how many were vehicle-vehicle accidents or vehicle-object accidents? Was it the pedestrian that was inebriated or the motor vehicle operator? And who actually died? In an accident a drunk person is more likely to die than a sober person due to decreased lung function, a higher chance of vomiting, and that vomit blocking their airways if they become unconscious. A drunk pedestrian hit by a car will have a higher chance of dying than a sober pedestrian, as will a drunk driver in an accident between two vehicles. Yes, it would suck if you were sober and just walking along at night, and a car driven by a drunk came out of nowhere, mounted the sidewalk and killed you. However, I suspect the death toll included many drunk people who were at fault as well, and the actual number of victims that died due to other people's alcohol abuse would only be a subset of the above.
You bring up a good point in that the 13000 fatalies include the drunk drivers themselves.
However, a percentage of those are obviously innocent bystanders.
Would you give up drinking and voluntarily ban alcohol if it saved those innocent lives?
General Point:
This post isn't about whether our politicians should bring back Prohibition against the majority's will. That will only lead to an increased demand for black market alcohol, giving crime rings increased funding and such.
This post is about whether you as an individual would voluntarily give up the pleasure of drinking if it meant that there were less stupid people out there getting drunk and driving, and killing people.
Now, the obvious result according to the poll is that most people would NOT give up their drink to save some lives. However, I'm not sure whether this is what the voters truely believe, or whether this is because people misunderstood the poll to mean banning alcohol against the majority's will, leading to increased crime.
Travis, since you're reading this thread, could you wipe the poll, and make it a new one with the title as "Would you voluntarily give up drinking and vote to ban it, if it meant less drunk driving fatalities?"
Thanks.
|
People don't realize how dangerous it is to drive, let alone to drive drunk. Everyone thinks like they're going to war.
"Yes people die, but not me."
I'm well aware of the price of alcohol after finishing my studies at the University of Kentucky. Every year a student died because they got drunk, and not just because they were driving.
One year a student got hit by a train while trying to run from the cops. The next year a kid fell of a mountain the day before classes started. One grad student just walked out of a bar fell and hit his head on the sidewalk to died instantly. Even a star volleyball player who had just graduated swerved and hit a tree while driving.
It's disgusting, but what can you do? Banning alcohol doesn't work and telling people not to drink and drive doesn't stop it. Some people just simply won't be responsible about it, and I guarantee you that not a single one of those 13,846 didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. It's a catch 22 with trying to stop it.
|
I was quite an alcoholic, I used to drink every night until i felt I could sleep. Alcohol is a bad thing I wish I was never involved with to be quite honest. Don't make it illegal, but if your smart you would just steer clear of it. drink moderately and only on special occasions.
|
@Madcow, The issue for me is I didn't vote in the poll, because I don't agree with any of the options. Alcohol, drugs, cars, guns and so forth, kill people. But in the end it's the people who kill them not the item itself. Some people here stated some stupid things, but the majority knows that it's the people themselves.
One guy said he drinks and drives, I'd just have him executed already personally, he's eventually going to kill someone, people like that are just ticking time bombs always being uneducated, but not realizing that they are uneducated, I don't care if he has a "Masters" in College or 7 of them, if you don't have the brains to realize that doing something dangerous could injure others, other than yourself, you are taking an unnecessary risk, and putting it on others too.
How many 100,000+ Stories are there of people who drank and drive and their friends died in the accident, and yet they've done it 100's of times but nothing happens, or 1000's of times. It only takes 1 time to make that mistake and regret it, or not regret it for the rest of your life.
Education is necessary but so are more severe punishments for DUI's. Doing it is literally taking a chance at killing someone every time you get behind the wheel.
Like the guy who wasn't caught drinking and driving in this forum, he should have his car confiscated, and be fined a sum of money and imprisoned. Well if only American Prisons weren't as shitty as they are.
|
Alcohol is something disgusting. Somehow, weed is illegal, but the most dangerous drug of all is completely legal! Not only that, the majority of people on the planet even support drinking alcohol!
I will never touch alcohol. I'm not drinking a toxic that causes me to lose control over myself.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I can totally see how well 'drinking in moderation' is turning out![/sarcasm]
|
On June 16 2011 15:40 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
No way is banning alcohol ever going to be good, maybe tax it higher or something, make it less accessable.
By the way, that's less than 0.01% of people
Instead of blaming alcohol, try banning Vancouver from losing hockey
No but really teach them it's just a game...
No way is banning alcohol ever going to be good? Alcohol doesn't really bring anything good into society in the first place. Not sure why a vodka red bull couldn't just be replaced by a coke if it was going to benefit society...
|
You know I've given this a lot of thought, and I think that if it comes down to it we ought to give up driving instead. You'd save a lot more lives, rescue the environment, have an enforceable law, improve nationwide fitness (people are going to have to walk liquor store), and still retain one of those precious activities that makes sitting at home without a car fun in the first place.
|
To be completely honest, I would change alot of my habits if I had the oppertunity to save others lives. Even if it meant to give up *exagerated breath in* starcraft(I dont know how that would save someones life, but it is just supporting my idea from line one). However, if motions were to be made to prevent these "killer" habits, it would lead to more cons (organized crime, etc.), so it is basically common sense for in this case alchoholics to stop drinking for the better of everyone including themselves.
Just my opinion(dont trash this comment please, just my honest answer).
Also, I am very surprised on the poll results, but hey, everyone has opinions, none are right nor wrong.
|
lel what bs by this argument why not ban cars then there would be less car accidents and organize huge amounts of public busses for pendlers or stuff it just cant be done .
|
There are no deaths caused by my drinking. My own personal discontinuation would achieve nothing.
|
The kinds of people who are stupid drunks are not likely to give up drinking, and the people with the ability to stop often have the self control to not do stupid things while drunk. Obviously this is a generalization but i think it holds true in the majority of cases.
|
General Point:
This post isn't about whether our politicians should bring back Prohibition against the majority's will. That will only lead to an increased demand for black market alcohol, giving crime rings increased funding and such.
This post is about whether you as an individual would voluntarily give up the pleasure of drinking if it meant that there were less stupid people out there getting drunk and driving, and killing people
I still stand by my point that the idiotic subset of society that we're discussing are predisposed to make terrible choices well before they got drunk. You're asking if I would make sacrifices to forgive someone from personal responsibility.
Ask Jesus for a free pass from vigilant personal responsibility. In my society if you "slip", you go to jail.
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
According to AlcoholAlert, there were a total of 13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008.
Therefore, with some simple math, each person that died due to drunk driving is worth 14,759 alcohol drinkers.
To sum this up in more layman terms, the life of each person in America is worth the freedom of 14,759 other people to enjoy and consume alcohol. In other words, the right of 14,759 people to enjoy alcoholic beverages is worth more than the life of one person.
Just awful, D minus.
The inherent worth of people cannot be judged by the legality of a substance and the statistical death ratio. To put it in layman terms: You're argument is invalid and based on the hope that your reader will not think.
|
Me and my friend got into a debate regarding this a while ago. He is hardcore "let people do whatever they want, as long as they don't interfere with other peoples lives". He thinks we should legalize all drugs and etc. While I somewhat agree with him, I always viewed alcohol/drugs as something that should be illegal, but can't be. Making alcohol/drugs illegal just leads to bigger problems, which is why they have to be legal, whereas he just believe everyone should be able to do whatever they want to themselves. In a perfect world, we shouldn't have to use drugs, but this isn't a perfect world I guess.
edit:
I don't drink/smoke/anything
|
"Would you voluntarily give up drinking and vote to ban it, if it meant less drunk driving fatalities?"
Would never happen so no. There is zero realistic possibility of alcohol ever being banned again in the United States, in any future relevant to my life, that enables me to make that kind of decision in which society would collectively give up alcohol.
|
And how many people would die as a result of crimes related to attempting to acquire/consume illegal alcohol?
|
The overall point I want to stress is I'm not giving up something so others do not die. I'm giving up something so others are not killed by being irresponsible.
Even at that, if you drink and drive or drink and riot or drink and drink until you OD, if you cannot drink surely you'll find a new way to put yourself and others in harm for a good time.
|
I don't even see the connection between people drinking alcohol and drunk people causing deadly accidents. Really, there is no connection, if you're an idiot you'll still be an idiot even without the alcohol and I hope you die at the moment you run your car over someone else while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
|
I wonder how many lives we could save by illegalizing:
-driving
-skiing
-eating fast food
-biking
-martial arts
-swimming
-walking on icy sidewalks
-construction work (we'll have to live in thatched huts)
-having sex past age 65
-candy
-the profession of dentistry (high suicide rate among dentists- we don't need them anyway since sweet foods are now outlawed)
-eating any food that hasn't been ground into a fine paste to prevent choking
You're really onto something big, op.
|
same reason cigs , video games, tv , junk foood isnt banned.
u can look at the righteousness of it all ,but in the end it all comes back to
MONEYYYYYYYYY
|
So the logic is that if I give up alcohol, people won't die because of irresponsible causes?
Assuming that banning alcohol would mean that less people would abuse is soooooooooooo naive.
I grew up in Vietnam and I've been enjoying alcoholic drinks since I was 8ish. Never do I really care about abusing alcohol to impress others because it's just something everyone does so banning alcohol might even be extremely counter-productive.
For example, abusing taking a shower will likely cause hypothermia and lead to insurmountable death because water is so readily available to developed countries. However, taking a shower is completely legal so no one have the urge to abuse it because there's no +peen for doing it.
|
I dont drink, I'm 20 years old, living in Australia (above legal age) and can easily afford to drink and attend situations where I could quite availably drink.
People will often ask, why don't you drink? Or, why aren't you drinking? The answer I give is often "Long story" and thats pretty much it as I dont feel for getting in a heated debate about the morality of governments with drunk and intellectually inferior people. However, I'm now not talking with drunk people (at least I hope not lol), I'm talking with people of above average intelligence with an interest in the subject.
I use to drink, it wasn't until I was 19 that I stopped. I was king-hit by the friend of someone who had an issue with me. I had taken "His" girl (basically the most attractive girl at the party). He brought this to my attention, earlier challenging me calling me a fagot and budging me into a table(I didn't react, simply ignored it). Going outside - with only her was... in hindsight a regret, but now I'm glad it had all happened.
I was king hit by one of his friends "King hit: The most hardcore, damage-maximising, chronicly solid punch that can be thrown. Send's the aggressor off balance if it doesn't hit the intended target. " I wasn't injured by the punch, sure, initially it hurt, but it was mainly the shock of what had actually happened that I had been persecuted for what, succeeding in a competition?
I dont drink because I dont agree with the culture. Australia has a crisis at the moment - each weekend all I see are young people binge drinking over and over and over. Literally hundreds of fights every night causing dozens of hospital visits, numerous broken noses and even death.
![[image loading]](http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/215327_10150233842255555_622750554_8713145_4836751_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/223043_10150233842805555_622750554_8713159_5963537_n.jpg)
These are photos from a friends facebook, luckily, he didnt kill anyone. Though he did end up in hospital for a few weeks, he didnt do any real harm (other than writing off a car that is now void as he was drunk). The frustrating part: He still drink drives.
My problem:
Why does the government allow a select few to ruin it for all of us. It is allowed and permitted in all western societies and is doing us such harm. Such obvious harm, why don't they allow marijuana?
I don't know what the point of this post is, whether its to raise awareness of drink driving reality or to vent my position on illegal drugs that just give power to the criminals.
All I know is if I was a politician I would be shot down in flames for either introducing zero tolerance on drink driving and alcohol related violence or legalizing every "Underground" drug and just actually educating people on the negative effects(but that's for another thread) of each drug.
|
There need to be balance between freedom and safety.
Sure we could ban anything slightly dangerous, let goverment monitor every piece of infromation, where we are, what we do and say. It would be safe world, but it's not something people look for.
|
The problem in giving up the right to drinking alcohol wouldn't alleviate this in slightest actually. I don't see the problem in the drinking, but the lack of respect and self-control. Alcohol is an already controlled substance. You need to be 21 or over which supposedly people should be old enough to make good judgement on themselves and it cannot be sold to people under influence (now it depends on the judgement of retailers and clerks).
Maybe the right way is how we can make people do more reasonable choices in their lives voluntarily that benefit the whole than the individual. I don't think we should make laws prohibiting alcohol consumption, but make people choose to not consume alcohol. Like with cigarettes, make them choose to stop smoking than forcing them to stop smoking. Maybe it's up to education to solve this question.
|
You've hugely oversimplified the problem by combining casual drink with binge drinking and combining your enjoyment drinker with your semi-suicidal drinker or your too stupid to know what he's doing drinker.
Realistically only 100 or so out of the 14,000 risk taking someone's life. It's those few that are the danger not the vast majority.
|
The sad thing is, anybody who would give up drinking probably don't drink and drive ect. Basically any "punishment" you put on consuming alcohol punishes the people who are already responsible.
|
i will drink when there is cause to celebrate something, and by that i mean like get married, meet a friend i haven't seen in years, visit people i've known online forever but am seeing for the first time, etc., and i'll be complete control of it like i was the last 5 or so times i've done it. i look down on everyone who takes pride in self-destruction by any means with a sense of pity and disappointment. i don't look at everyone who drinks this way, but i look at the people who have to get drunk to get women, the people who use it as an escape, the people who get peer pressured into drinking because it's cool, etc. i pity the people who can't restrain themselves and the people who end up causing fatalities are those who take that to it's final step.
unfortunately, outlawing it would do nothing, because people will just find other means to do it illegally which is SO much worse. now they're breaking the law on top of what drinking does to you anyways, and they'll be making criminals rich in the mean time. the fact that it's a drug heavily ingrained into the culture of society would basically cause an even worse version of the response to Prohibition since the population of people who drink it are much larger than back then. if you actually want to do something about it it needs to be minimalized in various ways.
On June 16 2011 16:33 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously... man i hope you dont drink soda.. like cola, sprite, pepsi.. whatever.. cause then you wouldnt be drinking poison.. you'd be drinking acid
that's the most retarded counter argument i've ever heard for alcohol consumption. maybe people shouldn't drink various fruit juices either. you won't disentigrate by drinking lemon juice or soda over time if you use a tooth brush every once in a while, but you can't brush out the acid destroying your liver that comes from alcohol. i assume it wasn't an entirely serious argument but your little wink emote as if you thought you were clever baited me.
|
I wouldn't give up drinking but I never drink and drive, and I don't break stuff even when I am extremely drunk. The other night some guy intentionally spilled beer on my head and I understood he was smashed (he could barely speak when I confronted him) and elected not to absolutely wreck his ass as I certainly could have, although my night out was ruined and I was very angry and quite drunk myself.
The underlying problem is lack of personal culture and not controlled substances I'd say. When gathered in a critical mass, these people are most likely just as prone to vandalism and wanton destruction when they are sober.
|
On June 16 2011 16:33 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously... man i hope you dont drink soda.. like cola, sprite, pepsi.. whatever.. cause then you wouldnt be drinking poison.. you'd be drinking acid
Nothing wrong with drinking acid every once in a while if you get what I mean
|
If Alcohol was invented today as a substance and drug, it WOULD be illegal. No doubts about it.
Think about that for a moment... let it swirl in your head.
Alcohol is the ONLY substance that we actively ENCOURAGE people to consume... Alcohol is by far one of the most dangerous substances known to humans, because it has so severe societal and personal effects..... this cannot be disputed.
So yeah.. I drink alcohol myself, but I always control myself... I never drive drunk, I don't get in fights, I don't jeopardize the lives or well beings of other people, and I sure as shit, don't drink so much that I lose my common rational and logical thought process.
But most people, don't really give a fuck throw all this away.. and just get hammered, and do whatever the fuck they want.. regardless
Bring in cars, guns, knives, fights, maternal and family disputes, high emotions, break-ups... HELL bring in ANY crisis or problem situation ... add alcohol, and tell me if the consequences are not going straight down the fucking drain...
|
Drunk driving is such a hard thing to cover. You can keep on slapping penalties on it, but the fact is when people are drunk enough they just don't care... I think the amount people are able to buy should be limited and they can get a special license to buy more if they agree to put a breathalyzer in their car.
|
On June 16 2011 19:59 MasterFischer wrote:
Alcohol is by far one of the most dangerous substances known to humans, because it has so severe societal and personal effects..... this cannot be disputed.
It can easily be disputed because there are literally thousands of substances that are more dangerous.
|
On June 16 2011 20:03 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 19:59 MasterFischer wrote:
Alcohol is by far one of the most dangerous substances known to humans, because it has so severe societal and personal effects..... this cannot be disputed.
It can easily be disputed because there are literally thousands of substances that are more dangerous.
Depends on how you define "dangerous"...
Because if dangerous means not only the personal effects of the drug, then alcohol is by far more dangerous than most drugs, given that they effect not only YOU, but the people, places and environment around you.
Even alcohol in large quantities is deteriorating to your health, just like most illegal drugs.
And as I said.. alcohol is the only LEGAL, mass produced substance, that we actively encourage others to consume... we even take fun and pleasure in watching people drunk... think about it my man... the culture and environment surrounding alcohol has far.. FAR surpassed that of the ludicrous
|
A better solution would be absolutely DRACONIC penalties for DUI. Like tens of thousands of dollars or months in prison. If you kill someone while drunk driving, you get murder two, no discussion.
Fix'd.
|
I would say yes to stricter laws perhaps limiting consumption or buying capability or the drinking age. I do not support just making alcohol illegal, I think thats ridiculous.
|
It's like this..
1. You know there are literally hundrends of thousands of people who don't give a fuck if they drink or drive.. drink or shoot... hell.. they just don't give a fuck when they're drunk...
so..
2. Should alcohol not undergo more restrictions and limitations due to this factor, since, we currently only control who can buy and drink it to a limited measure. Alchol have profound consequences of society, by those who go over the edge..
meaning
3. Just because YOU can control your alochol, and YOU don't drink and drive, doesn't mean that the problem will go away, if you just turn the cheek and say.. .well.. not my family.. not me ! That will never happen to me.... and once it does... yeah.. karma is a bitch..
in the end
4. Enforcing responsible drinking, and limitations on consumation and quantity, will most likely make it harder for super drunks to get a hold of it, and perhaps benefit to ensure that they get the treatment they need for it. But the culture of alcohol is too pervasive to be dealt with in small doses... it has no effect on the majority... because people still go out and get motherfucking drunk, and wreck chaos for everybody around them.... and nobody seems to give a fuck
|
I just find it funny, that people are so appalled about alcohol restrictions...
Not because it's not rational to do so, but because, as I said, alcohol has taken such an integral part of everyday life and culture in humans around the world. It's like the legalized substance to act however you want. Meanwhile we look down on weed smokers and other substances, which have proven not to be THAT much more dangerous, and yet consumed on a far less greater scale.. makes you think..
But then again... why are cigarettes legal? They too are the nr. 1 cause of deaths of all people in most countries. Yet people smoke away, and say.. yo.. ho ho ! want a smoke? Lezz smoke togathar.
|
sounds like u need a beer
|
To alcohol! The cause of... and solution to... all of life's problems.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Germany: 82 Mio, Alcohol related car fatalities: 428 (Numbers from 2008)
85% of the population drinks. Germany has the 5th highest alcohol consumption in the world. Random fact not supported by numbers: There is generally no speed limits on German highways.
Following your logic that makes 162,850 drinkers per fatality.
Maybe you guys should just not drive under the influence instead of discussing a ban of alcohol.
|
@OP you are thinking 2dimentional about this, because you are not considering the lives that would be lost if the people couldn't drink, a lot of factors and nuances would arise... i'm sure everyone gets the point that im trying to make so i wont try to explain it any further.
The best approach is pretty much what society is doing right now, trying to raise the awareness of the dangers involved in alcohol abuse, so the people make decisions by themselves.
|
On June 16 2011 20:24 zatic wrote:
Germany: 82 Mio, Alcohol related car fatalities: 428 (Numbers from 2008)
85% of the population drinks. Germany has the 5th highest alcohol consumption in the world. Random fact not supported by numbers: There is generally no speed limits on German highways.
Following your logic that makes 162,850 drinkers per fatality.
Maybe you guys should just not drive under the influence instead of discussing a ban of alcohol.
Yeah but, obviously Germany has conquered the aspects of drinking responsible it would seem, given your long history with alcohol and the culture surrounding it, however..
How do you gradually turn 307 million people towards drinking more responsibly, while still maintaining a totally open and free way to abuse alcohol.. while still wanting to LOWER the amount of accidents, and causalities involved with alcohol?
I just don't see it happening.
|
On June 16 2011 20:14 MasterFischer wrote:Meanwhile we look down on weed smokers and other substances, which have proven not to be THAT much more dangerous, and yet consumed on a far less greater scale.. makes you think.. Even if smoking weed is harmful, it's still only harmful to yourself, while drinking alcohol, which already is very toxic for yourself, does put the people around you at a great risk. And yet, weed is illegal and alcohol is readily available, everywhere.
I just find it sad that so many people defend alcohol, just because it's so embedded in our society. As someone else already pointed out, if alcohol would be discovered in these times, do you think it would be legal? The answer to this question is the answer to the OP's question.
But then again... why are cigarettes legal? They too are the nr. 1 cause of deaths of all people in most countries. Yet people smoke away, and say.. yo.. ho ho ! want a smoke? Lezz smoke togathar. Cigarettes should be illegal too, yap. You know what's stupid? People that start smoking while having the knowledge that it is very unhealthy and addictive.
I don't have any delusions though, banning alcohol and cigarettes will never happen.
|
Drinking alcohol has been apart of human culture for tens of thousands of years. People do stupid shit whether they are piss drunk or sober. Alcohol related deaths do not always mean it would not have happened without the presence of alcohol. imo If alcohol was more openly available and culturally managed like in many other countries there would not be nearly as many problems. I enjoy getting drunk occasionally, but i'm not going to be driving drunk. I feel people who make decisions like that are likely to make similar decisions that could also get them killed. My casual binge drinking does not effect others, why would I give it up? I do not feel increased taxes on alcohol would benefit people. However I do feel harsher punishment for drinking and driving should become a priority. I'm sure laws differ across every US state, but it should be a metric ton of a fine and automatic loss of license.
|
It's rather easy imho:
- Getting drunk or high and doing stupid shit, should mean you ought to get punished just as hard, or harder, than if you do the same shit sober.
- Being part of a group doing stupid shit, should mean you ought to get punished harder than if you do the same shit on your own.
Being part of a drunken mob should mean you get punished harder, than if you do the same shit on your own.
If people feel "I was just one of many, so I can't get punished" - they will do stupid shit. If they feel "if I get caught being part of this, my life will be ruined" - most people will think twice, even when drunk.
|
It's easy to blame it on alcohol being drunk isn't an excuse for doing stupid shit like drunk driving or joining a riot, you're still responsible for yourself.
|
On June 16 2011 20:29 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 20:14 MasterFischer wrote:Meanwhile we look down on weed smokers and other substances, which have proven not to be THAT much more dangerous, and yet consumed on a far less greater scale.. makes you think.. Even if smoking weed is harmful, it's still only harmful to yourself, while drinking alcohol, which already is very toxic for yourself, does put the people around you at a great risk. And yet, weed is illegal and alcohol is readily available, everywhere. I just find it sad that so many people defend alcohol, just because it's so embedded in our society. As someone else already pointed out, if alcohol would be discovered in these times, do you think it would be legal? The answer to this question is the answer to the OP's question. Show nested quote +But then again... why are cigarettes legal? They too are the nr. 1 cause of deaths of all people in most countries. Yet people smoke away, and say.. yo.. ho ho ! want a smoke? Lezz smoke togathar. Cigarettes should be illegal too, yap. You know what's stupid? People that start smoking while having the knowledge that it is very unhealthy and addictive. I don't have any delusions though, banning alcohol and cigarettes will never happen. Doesn't seem that unlikely that cigarettes might become illegal eventually, which makes me think it should be possible with alcohol as well.
These things are all about the general opinion. Smoking will only get banned once a huge majority thinks it's retarded to smoke for example. Changes like that are slow and hard to predict, especially since for example alcohol suffers from "being something adults use" which makes most kids, IE most people grow up thinking drinking alcohol is cool.
|
On June 16 2011 20:29 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 20:14 MasterFischer wrote:Meanwhile we look down on weed smokers and other substances, which have proven not to be THAT much more dangerous, and yet consumed on a far less greater scale.. makes you think.. Even if smoking weed is harmful, it's still only harmful to yourself, while drinking alcohol, which already is very toxic for yourself, does put the people around you at a great risk. And yet, weed is illegal and alcohol is readily available, everywhere. I just find it sad that so many people defend alcohol, just because it's so embedded in our society. As someone else already pointed out, if alcohol would be discovered in these times, do you think it would be legal? The answer to this question is the answer to the OP's question. Show nested quote +But then again... why are cigarettes legal? They too are the nr. 1 cause of deaths of all people in most countries. Yet people smoke away, and say.. yo.. ho ho ! want a smoke? Lezz smoke togathar. Cigarettes should be illegal too, yap. You know what's stupid? People that start smoking while having the knowledge that it is very unhealthy and addictive. I don't have any delusions though, banning alcohol and cigarettes will never happen.
... if it's socially acceptable to drink and drive, people will drink and drive.
If your friends will call the police on you if you drink and drive - which will happen a fair bit in Norway, people will drink and drive a lot less.
Work on attitudes instead of banning alcohol ...
And if alcohol was discovered today, we'd not have any science either, so yeah, that's a winner ...
|
On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well.
Ah good ol Al CaPwn
|
You claim an awful lot of factual information but still draw a factual tie with your statement "The American people, by having alcohol legal today, are essentially placing a price on our own heads"
I couldnt disagree more.
For starters, I'm not sure why this is an American thing, alcohol is legal in most, if not all countries around the globe. Secondly, if we are doing anything to put a price on our own heads, its the blatant stupidity often exhibited by so many people every day, not alcohol.
It's texting while driving, drug use, speeding, not getting enough sleep, etc, etc, etc. I am plenty responsible when I drink as many other people are. It's the stupid ones who put a price on the heads of themselves and others, not the ones who choose to drink.
|
You could allso forbid unhealthy food, since this is the biggest cause for premature death in modern society.
Moreover, if you would ban alcohol, it would become exciting for teenagers/adolescents and instead of selling it legally (in usa 21+ i think) they would buy it illigal, which would increase crime rates and maybe even increase accidents caused by alcohol.
Besesides that I doubt the main problem is alcohol, I think crowd behavious is a more important factor in most riots.
|
On June 16 2011 20:04 Plague1503 wrote:
A better solution would be absolutely DRACONIC penalties for DUI. Like tens of thousands of dollars or months in prison. If you kill someone while drunk driving, you get murder two, no discussion.
Fix'd.
This already happens in the US. If you get a DUI its like $5000 in fines and fees etc and people have been tried with manslaughter and murder for killing someone while drunk.
Repeated DUI's lands you in prison along with bigger fines and fees everytime, not to mention you risk losing your job etc.
|
On June 16 2011 20:48 Madoga wrote:
You could allso forbid unhealthy food, since this is the biggest cause for premature death in modern society. This argument is void since being fat does not hurt other people.
|
I could use a job right now, and bootleggin sounds pretty good.
|
I don't drink = win ! Amiright.
|
I've concluded that there is such a punishment one can implement to curb drink driving, however, it is controversial.
One thing that is core is NO first chance - there are no exceptions. No you can not drink drive once and no you can not get caught once and not do it again - you can not do it at ALL.
Without warning - if you're done for DUI, 3 months jail. It will be low security but legitimately - 3 months without freedom.
Here are the laws regarding drink driving in my state of Australia.
More than double means Jail time - in between for first offence is just a standard DUI charge as it is (though doing this really creates a whole "excuse, exception, exemption" based system) -.-
I dont envy our politicians.
|
lots of self righteous posters here. Alcohol is a fun social drug, it calms nerves for many people and allows them to socialize without the self imposed pressure of being out and about. Some people dont like alcohol, fine, they have probably had a bad experience with it. If you haven't tried it and drink not to drink while at the same time looking down on people........
you are ridiculous.
|
On June 16 2011 20:51 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 20:48 Madoga wrote:
You could allso forbid unhealthy food, since this is the biggest cause for premature death in modern society. This argument is void since being fat does not hurt other people.
It does hurt other people, you put stresses on the healthcare system that would most likely not be there. The money spent on the clinically obese could be spent on other people (etc). Banning alcohol would be very much like banning fast food.
|
Ineffective and authoritarian?
Why do we always suggest banning something instead of teaching responsibility? Wtf Humanity, w t f?
|
On June 16 2011 20:52 Sadist wrote:
lots of self righteous posters here. Alcohol is a fun social drug, it calms nerves for many people and allows them to socialize without the self imposed pressure of being out and about. Some people dont like alcohol, fine, they have probably had a bad experience with it. If you haven't tried it and drink not to drink while at the same time looking down on people........
you are ridiculous. I admit I don't have any data to back it up with but I assume alcohol users outnumber non users by a huge margin and your post make it sound like it's the other way around.
|
As said by a dutch comedian: Alcohol costs hundreds of lives each year, but on the other hand hundreds of people are conceived each year because of alcohol.
|
I would give up drinking if I knew for certain that it would either prevent me from being responsible for a death, or that my example would keep someone else from doing something that would lead to death.
But as-is, I don't believe my drinking is going to cause deaths (because I am careful about how much I drink, what I do afterwards, etc.), so I see no reason to stop.
Not sure how to approach the poll.
|
On June 16 2011 19:13 3clipse wrote:
I wonder how many lives we could save by illegalizing:
-driving
-skiing
-eating fast food
-biking
-martial arts
-swimming
-walking on icy sidewalks
-construction work (we'll have to live in thatched huts)
-having sex past age 65
-candy
-the profession of dentistry (high suicide rate among dentists- we don't need them anyway since sweet foods are now outlawed)
-eating any food that hasn't been ground into a fine paste to prevent choking
You're really onto something big, op.
I think the OP is more concerned about unnecessary and pointless deaths caused primarily by idioicy/irresponsibility while drinking.
It's a cheap argument.
|
Maybe with the technology we'll have cars that drive themselves and/or cars that will detect if the driver is drunk, so they won't allow the driver to start the car. Now for vandalism, lotsa sober people do that sadly.
|
On June 16 2011 20:39 aebriol wrote:
It's rather easy imho:
- Getting drunk or high and doing stupid shit, should mean you ought to get punished just as hard, or harder, than if you do the same shit sober.
- Being part of a group doing stupid shit, should mean you ought to get punished harder than if you do the same shit on your own.
This.
On June 16 2011 20:52 Sadist wrote:
lots of self righteous posters here. Alcohol is a fun social drug, it calms nerves for many people and allows them to socialize without the self imposed pressure of being out and about.
I'm OK with people drinking, but if you're using liquor just so you can socialize indoors, WTF.
|
The whole debate is just as squalid as a would you trade 1 life for 1,000,000 scenario.
|
i would ban alcohol and legalise weed any day of the week
|
On June 16 2011 20:55 Probe1 wrote:
Ineffective and authoritarian?
Why do we always suggest banning something instead of teaching responsibility?
Because we're lazy.
|
On June 16 2011 20:55 Probe1 wrote:
Ineffective and authoritarian?
Why do we always suggest banning something instead of teaching responsibility? Wtf Humanity, w t f? Yeah, because teaching responsibility works so well for our race full of people that have respect for each other, oh wait...
You have too much faith in humans.
It does hurt other people, you put stresses on the healthcare system that would most likely not be there. The money spent on the clinically obese could be spent on other people (etc). Banning alcohol would be very much like banning fast food.
Simple solution, let fat people pay for their fat related healthcare themselves. Unless they're fat because of a medical condition of course, before you go rambling about that.
|
Banning alcohol ,even assuming it is a good idea, would just simply not work. Black market would appear immediately and incredible amounts of money would have to be sunk into enforcing it. Just punish harshly DUI, not much better can be done.
|
On June 16 2011 21:00 VGhost wrote:
I would give up drinking if I knew for certain that it would either prevent me from being responsible for a death, or that my example would keep someone else from doing something that would lead to death.
But as-is, I don't believe my drinking is going to cause deaths (because I am careful about how much I drink, what I do afterwards, etc.), so I see no reason to stop.
Not sure how to approach the poll. Basically how I see it as well. Seemed like an obvious yes to me but guess it depends on how you interpret the question.
|
alcohol calms nerves if you suffer from social anxiety (actually it just removes inhibitions) but so does learning to be social and cool and happy with yourself. going to the gym will make you feel more confident and you wont need to drink for these dumb issues. its a quickfix and often enough the depression and anxiety that results from alcohol abuse only makes the overall situation worse
|
[b]General Point:
This post isn't about whether our politicians should bring back Prohibition against the majority's will. That will only lead to an increased demand for black market alcohol, giving crime rings increased funding and such.
"Would you voluntarily give up drinking and vote to ban it, if it meant less drunk driving fatalities?"
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if we would vote to ban alcohol in order to save people's lives.
Or
if we would personally stop alcohol to save lives?
Also both of these questions seem really hypothetical to me, so could someone clear this up?
|
You have to consider the implications of an alcohol ban, would one risk ruining the business of every bar and drink distributor not to mention thousands of jobs, to save the lives of the few? There are better solutions to drink driving than banning booze
|
Yepp america was exactly the same in the 20's as now... :/
And @taldarimaltar
The free market will find employment for these, that point of view is invalid as to many industries that has happened and they have always been new employed.
I hear the same argument about smoking and its just wrong.
|
this is only a fundamental problem of econ301 behavioral eocnomics. go read books like freakonomics and you will get an idea.
|
Why u gotta do this to me/
Now whenever I drink ima think, "every time I drink, a kitten or w/e dies
damn u
|
In my opinion we just need to come together as a society and mature at earlier ages. Wine and Beer are both beverages that are drunk because of how they taste. They have their social contexts and should not be banned or stopped to be consumed.
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly. The only reasons people continue to drink it are either that they have an addiction that they need to feed or that they want to numb their emotional or physical pain/stress. Alternatively they keep doing it to be cool or fit into a certain crowd.
We need to get rid of the fratboy mentality that getting drunk off your ass is something cool and awesome. It's childish and pointless. Enjoy alchoholic beverages that you think taste good, not the ones that you think makes you cool.
|
I hate they way the OP worded the bolded part (I assume an edit?), it made an already stupid sounding post even worse.
The correlation between alcohol sales and drunk driving deaths is obvious, but there's no correlation between MY drinking and ANY drunk driving deaths.... Hell, I don't even drive.
Any1 who drives drunk is as bad as some1 who murders or... but that doesn't mean we should ban knives, as a way to reduce stabbing deaths.
It seems like the relative polls for other crimes would be...
"Would you give up cooking with knives to it meant less stabbing deaths?"
or "Would you give up sex if it meant less rapes?"
Complete BS topic.
"
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly.
OK I would have liked to contruct a well thought out argument here, but I'll just say: You are flat out and completely wrong about this.
|
I'm not going to vote in the poll in an effort to not skew the results but here's my reasoning:
If I knew my not drinking alcohol would avoid deaths, I would stop almost certainly. However, seeing as I, personally, haven't killed anyone (or even come close to that) because I'm safe when I consume alcohol, I don't think that I should have to stop consuming.
And I mean, that's the fine line here. Most people won't kill anyone but there are always the select few idiots who will.
Just my 2 cents.
|
On June 16 2011 21:06 FFGenerations wrote:
i would ban alcohol and legalise weed any day of the week
This is possibly the stupidest idea. Driving while high is no better than driving while drunk. There is no better option here. They are both extremely bad. I really wish that people who believe that weed should be legalized would accept the fact that it is not necessarily suddenly going to fix the problems that alcohol has. Weed/alcohol are both drugs which can fuck up your perception.
|
The real question is:
¿Would you stop using manure for agriculture if it meant less car bombs?
Just to point out the stupidity of the question.
If there is stupid people that do bad things with alcohol, it's not my fault, if they use knives to kill, it's not my fault, if they drive dangerously it's not my fault.
I refuse to lose any of my privileges just because there are plenty of stupid people in the world.
|
Would you give up driving because thousands of people die every year due to NON-alcholic road accidents???
|
On June 16 2011 21:51 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly. OK I would have liked to contruct a well thought out argument here, but I'll just say: You are flat out and completely wrong about this.
agreed.. whiskey is the best shit ever.. tastes hellova lot better than beer...
feeding an addiction am i? I drink perhaps 2 times a month max... but whiskey is still damn great
I'm more addicted to gaming if anything...
totally invalid statement about hard liquor
|
On June 16 2011 22:10 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 21:51 zatic wrote:On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly. OK I would have liked to contruct a well thought out argument here, but I'll just say: You are flat out and completely wrong about this. agreed.. whiskey is the best shit ever.. tastes hellova lot better than beer... feeding an addiction am i? I drink perhaps 2 times a month max... but whiskey is still damn great I'm more addicted to gaming if anything... totally invalid statement about hard liquor
I love hard liquor in certain drinks... I might have 1-2 drinks once or twice a month, and go out drinking every 2-3 months... damn, I'm such an addict...
|
I think the United States just needs to revamp its alcohol education. Too much of the alcohol culture in the U.S. is based around binge drinking or "drinking to get drunk".
|
On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction.
Really? Drink a nice single malt scotch and tell me it doesn't taste good.
|
So giving up drinking has a 1/15K probability of saving a life.
I value a life in the vicinity of $10M so that would save about $600 over the coarse of my life time.
I spend about $20/week on alcohol which is $1K/year and adds up to maybe $50K.
The financial cost is almost 100X higher than the cost in life lost so life lost is not a huge factor.
|
Just what we need, stop drinking so we can keep getting overpopulated... I think that anything that lowers human numbers on this planet (in moderation) can't be all bad. And who doesn't love some alcohol?
|
We could also try to not make it socially acceptable when you drink after 2-3 beer and actually get people to stop drunk driving.
|
Since you've now edited the OP, answer me this: why should I give up drinking when I'm never harmed anyone other than myself through my alcohol consumption? Hands off my life, please.
|
Unless you yourself are someone who drives hammered all the time, you're not preventing anything by voluntarily quiting. This thread is built on some terribly retarded logic the whole way around
|
In america you pretty much cant smoke.Soon we wouldn be able to smoke or drink alcohol or breathing air,but decided we could shoot everyone legally possessed weapon.Why should i stop drinking?Because someone drink and drive?or someone died?Its my free choice to drink alcohol,do drugs or smoke ciggarets.
|
There is an inherit social hazard to drinking. I think this is in part defined by such statistics as drunk driving deaths and horror stories of hard drinking lushes who populate the ne'er do well areas of town.
Drinking is required. I drink hard, often, and in the worse way: to escape an otherwise boring and depressing existence by swamping my fears worries and troubles underneath a resilient and destructive layer of drunken bliss. Or maybe i like being social.
The shame of drinking a 1/5 to the head and passing out before noon is to juicy to just give up. Besides, people are going to die - as long as I'm slightly sure my drinking hasn't resulted in any direct deaths- I see no impetus to act.
Alcohol like any other drug, cannot be blamed for what some individuals take from it.
|
I find the whole OP pretty stupid. If they banned drinking (people will not stop voluntarily) then lots of lives will be lost due to prohibition type violence.
People are people and their very nature will make them do stupid stuff. If you want to make things comparable maybe we should ban all "non essential" cartrips to reduce fatailities. Trips of less than 3 miles or so could be walked (most accidents happen close to home). A central planning department gives permission for a trip almost like a control tower giving a plane permission to take off ("whats that bud, you want to go to the store for a pint of milk? Request to drive denied, you should have planned better!")
Just think how many lives we could save!
|
|
|
haha I've always thought about this figure. 14,759 alcohol drinkers eh?
the thing is a lot of things we do has a trade off and it's just about whether the trade off is worth the gain.
Pulling this out of my ass but it's probably like 9283749872394729834 weed smokers to cause 1 car accident? haha
|
I am probably biased since I take in a not insignificant amount of alcohol most weeks. However I would argue that there is another angle to this problem. Namely law enforcement. First off, you are proposing a prohibition of alcohol to avoid people breaking another law; drunk driving. So why is this necessary? This is necessary because the police can not enforce the law that states that drunk people are not allowed to drive.
Consequentially, You could equally well argue that it is the decision of the government that the loss of 13000 people a year due to drunk driving is offset by the cost of actually having the police enforce the law that states that drunk driving is illegal.
Additionally, you already have people breaking the law by committing drunk driving. Even if alcohol was prohibited, how would safeguard against people just brewing their own alcohol and then go drunk driving? I assure you it is not that difficult to distill some really potent stuff.
Now I could very well be wrong about this but as far as I recall, one of the contributing factors to why alcohol is not prohibited is because people distill it themselves and then, sooner or later, go blind due to residual amounts of methanol in the liquor. Another governmental cost benefit evaluation. This legislation is very complex and there are many angles to look out for.
Note: I come from Denmark and here driving with a blood alcohol rate of 0.05 % in your bloodstream is illegal (~ a glass of wine or 33 cl beer). This is foundation that I base my reply on and I have absolutely no idea how the specific rules are in the US.
|
On June 16 2011 15:41 Nazarid wrote:They tried to make alcohol illegal in the United States of America. You should read up a little on how that turned out. This post makes me feel like the OP thinks it 100% Alcohols fault these(I know he doesn't just makes me feel like he does) PEOPLE could not control themselves.
This is a strange russian poster. Does it say alcohol does not lead to death?
|
Alcohol isnt the source of the problem, the lack of self-control in our "excessive fun" cultures is. Those "american tradistions" of Spring break teach excess of alcohol and fun at all costs to the youth and need to be scrapped IMO.
There is another bad thing which is to blame and that is the pitiful fines for drunk driving (and other "misbehaviours"). If there were severe fines for drunk driving instead of just some money - losing your drivers license for half a year for example - people would take care not to drive when drunk and slowly get used to it. If someone repeatedly "misbehaves on the road" I could imagine that confiscating the car (and then selling or scrapping it) might be the right thing to do. In any case the current monetary fines hurt poor people more than the rich and arent fair, but losing the drivers license of confiscation of the car is the same for rich and poor.
|
1. How about people stop drunk DRIVING, instead of stopping drinking?
2. I got alcohol for 6 years before it was legal for me to have it... it wouldn't be all that hard to keep getting it illegally, from Canada if necessary. Alcohol would probably still be consumed at levels that are suprisingly close to current ones.
|
I don't drink (yes I'm old enough) and honestly I wish it didn't exist. We're at the point, at least in UK society, where drinking in itself means drinking alcohol and if you don't get drunk at least sometimes people will be genuinely confused and ask for an explanation. People when drunk are a major problem, causing massive public spending required on police and ambulance services, and making the atmosphere in town centers hell for those who're still sober and quite often violent for those who aren't.
That said, alcohol does exist, and whilst I might wish people didn't drink obviously a lot of people enjoy it harmlessly and so even I'd be opposed to banning it.
|
On June 16 2011 23:22 lolsixtynine wrote:
1. How about people stop drunk DRIVING, instead of stopping drinking?
There we go! I'm confused by this thread. How does me having a drink with dinner contribute to drunk driving deaths? What we need to ban is irresponsible idiots, not alcohol. Unfortunately, that doesn't quite work.
|
Alcohol-related != alcohol-caused. Additionally, the NHTSA artificially inflates their (already inflated) alcohol-related statistics.
http://www.drunkard.com/issues/08_02/08_02_fighting_madd.htm
interesting article, most assuredly biased in the opposite direction but with some not-commonly-known information.
anyway, your numbers are way off.
there should be stricter punishments for legitimately dangerous people (people who drive with enough alcohol in their system to effect their driving ability). there should not be stricter rules for people who drink alcohol.
On June 16 2011 23:21 Rabiator wrote:
In any case the current monetary fines hurt poor people more than the rich and arent fair, but losing the drivers license of confiscation of the car is the same for rich and poor.
That's not exactly true, but closer to a good rule than a monetary fine.
|
I've already given up drinking. It's ridiculous...... have you ever smelled a rotting fruit ? It smells like alcohol? And why would you want to drink that shit?
Smoke weed, and you won't have riots. I'm 20 years old and I made this decision after getting in 10x more trouble because of alcohol than marijuana....
It boils down to the fact people drink to forget who they are and numb themselves from real life.. honestly, that's all it is.... if it's not, then you aren't getting drunk and there's no problem.
|
I'd be all for extremly heavy drunk driving laws and punihsment. It's not a fix, but it would atleast be better than a small fine and a smack on the wrist.
But then again, the world is filled with greedy, careless and selfish people and there's still so other many things these retards can conjure up..
|
It speaks volumes to the naivety of TL that 34% would ban alcohol after reading a biased opinion. You don't just simply choose to stop drinking alcohol and save lives.
Many people responsible for those deaths are looking for something extreme to do if they are willing to drive drunk, ban their alcohol and most will find another way to kill themselves or someone else.
The money put into enforcing a law against alcohol would not only fail horribly it would be very expensive like the war on drugs and would probably cost more lives than it would save.
|
People die in car accidents from lack of sleep or crash because they talked in their mobile phones while driving. The solution is and has always been better and more automated cars like the ones in Irobot. Complete automation with manual override if neccessary.
|
You're making the assumption that the presence of alcohol inevitably means drunk drivers. Why does it have to be that way? It's a matter of educating people on the effects of driving while influenced, not disallowing them from drinking.
It's the equivalent of forbidding cellphones because some people talk in them while they drive. What I'm saying is it's not the presence of alcohol, it's the matter of the populace being uneducated on the effects of alcohol on their driving abilities.
Different solution: Breathalyzers in cars that have to be blown in before the car will start.
|
It really is about the intelligence of the people rather than the substance imo.
|
I don't really see the point of the poll. Wouldn't the people that would be willing to give up drinking to avoid more alcohol related deaths already not be the ones that actually cause them to happen?
I mean if you would give up drinking to not cause accidents you'd probably never get behind the wheel drunk in the first place? Thus the number of alcohol related deaths would just remain the same since the people that DO drive drunk won't feel morally obliged to stop drinking to prevent it anyway.
Besides that I find it a silly notion that banning alcohol would reduce alcohol related crimes in the first place. It's not like banning drugs is working out very well for the crime rates in a country anyway. Rather the opposite is usually true, less crime when it is legal.
|
If alcohol was illegal, less of them would be drunk, and they would be less likely to participate in the riot
Because we all know that making something illegal gets us rid of it and people will never-ever think about using/doing/consuming thing X again!
As we all know the USofA has successfully banned alcohol since 1920 and are still going strong!
|
On June 16 2011 23:34 scorch- wrote:Alcohol-related != alcohol-caused. Additionally, the NHTSA artificially inflates their (already inflated) alcohol-related statistics. http://www.drunkard.com/issues/08_02/08_02_fighting_madd.htminteresting article, most assuredly biased in the opposite direction but with some not-commonly-known information. anyway, your numbers are way off. there should be stricter punishments for legitimately dangerous people (people who drive with enough alcohol in their system to effect their driving ability). there should not be stricter rules for people who drink alcohol.
This is what I was getting at earlier but couldn't find the link for. Thank you.
|
On June 16 2011 17:53 Fraidnot wrote:
It's disgusting, but what can you do? Banning alcohol doesn't work and telling people not to drink and drive doesn't stop it. Some people just simply won't be responsible about it, and I guarantee you that not a single one of those 13,846 didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. It's a catch 22 with trying to stop it.
Banning alcohol would work if it was the majority's will. Then, nobody will have easy access to alcohol, and there also won't be a rise in crime because most people will be voluntarily abstaining, and won't be out on the black market looking for a drink.
The question is, are people willing to do it?
On June 16 2011 18:12 GertHeart wrote:
@Madcow, The issue for me is I didn't vote in the poll, because I don't agree with any of the options. Alcohol, drugs, cars, guns and so forth, kill people. But in the end it's the people who kill them not the item itself. Some people here stated some stupid things, but the majority knows that it's the people themselves.
One guy said he drinks and drives, I'd just have him executed already personally, he's eventually going to kill someone, people like that are just ticking time bombs always being uneducated, but not realizing that they are uneducated, I don't care if he has a "Masters" in College or 7 of them, if you don't have the brains to realize that doing something dangerous could injure others, other than yourself, you are taking an unnecessary risk, and putting it on others too.
How many 100,000+ Stories are there of people who drank and drive and their friends died in the accident, and yet they've done it 100's of times but nothing happens, or 1000's of times. It only takes 1 time to make that mistake and regret it, or not regret it for the rest of your life.
Education is necessary but so are more severe punishments for DUI's. Doing it is literally taking a chance at killing someone every time you get behind the wheel.
Like the guy who wasn't caught drinking and driving in this forum, he should have his car confiscated, and be fined a sum of money and imprisoned. Well if only American Prisons weren't as shitty as they are.
Alcohol makes it easier for stupid people to do stupid things, like get drunk and drive.
Why would you be in favor of killing drunk driver idiots, but not in favor of limiting the chances they can get drunk and drive?
After all, besides the commercial value of the alcohol industry, the drink itself serves no essential function in our society. Even Morphine and Marijuana, both illegal to the majority of people in the world, have legitimate medical uses. Alcohol does not.
On June 16 2011 18:32 HULKAMANIA wrote:
You know I've given this a lot of thought, and I think that if it comes down to it we ought to give up driving instead. You'd save a lot more lives, rescue the environment, have an enforceable law, improve nationwide fitness (people are going to have to walk liquor store), and still retain one of those precious activities that makes sitting at home without a car fun in the first place.
There are plenty of places where people literally cannot go about their lives without automobiles.
The same cannot be said of alcohol.
On June 16 2011 18:47 Voltaire wrote:
There are no deaths caused by my drinking. My own personal discontinuation would achieve nothing.
Personal discontinuation and vote to ban alcohol.
I swear, it's like people stop reading past the first 3 sentences in the OP.
On June 16 2011 18:58 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +General Point:
This post isn't about whether our politicians should bring back Prohibition against the majority's will. That will only lead to an increased demand for black market alcohol, giving crime rings increased funding and such.
This post is about whether you as an individual would voluntarily give up the pleasure of drinking if it meant that there were less stupid people out there getting drunk and driving, and killing people I still stand by my point that the idiotic subset of society that we're discussing are predisposed to make terrible choices well before they got drunk. You're asking if I would make sacrifices to forgive someone from personal responsibility. Ask Jesus for a free pass from vigilant personal responsibility. In my society if you "slip", you go to jail. Show nested quote +
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
According to AlcoholAlert, there were a total of 13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008.
Therefore, with some simple math, each person that died due to drunk driving is worth 14,759 alcohol drinkers.
To sum this up in more layman terms, the life of each person in America is worth the freedom of 14,759 other people to enjoy and consume alcohol. In other words, the right of 14,759 people to enjoy alcoholic beverages is worth more than the life of one person.
Just awful, D minus. The inherent worth of people cannot be judged by the legality of a substance and the statistical death ratio. To put it in layman terms: You're argument is invalid and based on the hope that your reader will not think.
This isn't about keeping idiots out of jail by not allowing them to kill people while drunk driving.
This is about saving people's lives by keeping idiots away from something that makes them more idiotic.
Your Jesus metaphor is quite ironic and applicable to this situation. Jesus supposedly died to save our souls. Would you give up drinking and vote to ban alcohol to save a stranger's life?
And how is my argument invalid? By allowing people to consume a destructive substance, society is placing a price on people's lives by saying that the consumption of said substance has greater value to the community as a whole than the loss of the few people that die due to this substance.
You want to try again without the ad hominems, give me a call.
On June 16 2011 18:59 stevarius wrote:
"Would you voluntarily give up drinking and vote to ban it, if it meant less drunk driving fatalities?"
Would never happen so no. There is zero realistic possibility of alcohol ever being banned again in the United States, in any future relevant to my life, that enables me to make that kind of decision in which society would collectively give up alcohol.
Pretty sure in 1800 people thought slavery would be around forever too. Then, a few people gradually began thinking "hey, maybe we shouldn't chain them up and call them niggers." Then a war and a few protest movements and a lot of time went by, and suddenly in 2011 African Americans have the exact same rights as white people.
Change starts small. And, it starts with just a few people. Are you one of those people?
On June 16 2011 19:03 Probe1 wrote:
The overall point I want to stress is I'm not giving up something so others do not die. I'm giving up something so others are not killed by being irresponsible.
Even at that, if you drink and drive or drink and riot or drink and drink until you OD, if you cannot drink surely you'll find a new way to put yourself and others in harm for a good time.
If your argument is that idiots will get find something to replace alcohol, what other widely available substance on the market will do what alcohol does to you?
Everything else I can think of is already illegal.
On June 16 2011 19:08 dakalro wrote:
I don't even see the connection between people drinking alcohol and drunk people causing deadly accidents. Really, there is no connection, if you're an idiot you'll still be an idiot even without the alcohol and I hope you die at the moment you run your car over someone else while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Alcohol makes an idiot even more of an idiot. Not only will they be mentally stupid, their physical reflexes will also be retarded by alcohol. Would you give it up and vote to make it illegal so these idiots have a harder time impairing their senses, then getting in a car and killing people?
On June 16 2011 19:25 Tuczniak wrote:
There need to be balance between freedom and safety.
Sure we could ban anything slightly dangerous, let goverment monitor every piece of infromation, where we are, what we do and say. It would be safe world, but it's not something people look for.
Giving up your freedoms does NOT ensure your safety. It merely makes you more safe against external threats. But, it makes you more vulnerable to your own government.
So, while allowing the government to wiretap your phones without notice, and arrest anyone without charge will keep you more safe from terrorist attacks, it will make you easier to oppress by your elected officials.
On June 16 2011 19:26 AlecPyron wrote:
The problem in giving up the right to drinking alcohol wouldn't alleviate this in slightest actually. I don't see the problem in the drinking, but the lack of respect and self-control. Alcohol is an already controlled substance. You need to be 21 or over which supposedly people should be old enough to make good judgement on themselves and it cannot be sold to people under influence (now it depends on the judgement of retailers and clerks).
Maybe the right way is how we can make people do more reasonable choices in their lives voluntarily that benefit the whole than the individual. I don't think we should make laws prohibiting alcohol consumption, but make people choose to not consume alcohol. Like with cigarettes, make them choose to stop smoking than forcing them to stop smoking. Maybe it's up to education to solve this question.
The very phrase "make them choose" is inherently contradictory. You can't force anyone to choose anything, or it wouldn't be a choice.
Everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer. Millions still choose to smoke. And the highly ironic thing is, cigarettes aren't banned in most countries, while suicide is illegal in most countries, even though smoking cigarettes is tantamount to slowly committing suicide.
And how would voluntarily giving up drinking and voting to ban it NOT alleviate drunk driving deaths? Alcohol would be far harder to access, so there would be less drunk drivers out there.
On June 16 2011 19:28 Klive5ive wrote:
You've hugely oversimplified the problem by combining casual drink with binge drinking and combining your enjoyment drinker with your semi-suicidal drinker or your too stupid to know what he's doing drinker.
Realistically only 100 or so out of the 14,000 risk taking someone's life. It's those few that are the danger not the vast majority.
Casual drinkers can kill people while under the influence of alcohol just as easily as a binge drinker can.
Are you actually one of those people that believes drinking while "buzzed" doesn't impair your senses? That it's ok to drive after drinking if you've only had "a couple" beers, and no liquor?
On June 16 2011 19:31 Herculix wrote:i will drink when there is cause to celebrate something, and by that i mean like get married, meet a friend i haven't seen in years, visit people i've known online forever but am seeing for the first time, etc., and i'll be complete control of it like i was the last 5 or so times i've done it. i look down on everyone who takes pride in self-destruction by any means with a sense of pity and disappointment. i don't look at everyone who drinks this way, but i look at the people who have to get drunk to get women, the people who use it as an escape, the people who get peer pressured into drinking because it's cool, etc. i pity the people who can't restrain themselves and the people who end up causing fatalities are those who take that to it's final step. unfortunately, outlawing it would do nothing, because people will just find other means to do it illegally which is SO much worse. now they're breaking the law on top of what drinking does to you anyways, and they'll be making criminals rich in the mean time. the fact that it's a drug heavily ingrained into the culture of society would basically cause an even worse version of the response to Prohibition since the population of people who drink it are much larger than back then. if you actually want to do something about it it needs to be minimalized in various ways. Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 16:33 ZergOwaR wrote:On June 16 2011 15:45 Atasu wrote:
Alcohol causes so many problems, to the point were I ask my self has man lost all common sense? Its worthless and I can never see my self drinking it, those who get pleasure out of it are in denial. Hey lets drink poison...seriously... man i hope you dont drink soda.. like cola, sprite, pepsi.. whatever.. cause then you wouldnt be drinking poison.. you'd be drinking acid that's the most retarded counter argument i've ever heard for alcohol consumption. maybe people shouldn't drink various fruit juices either. you won't disentigrate by drinking lemon juice or soda over time if you use a tooth brush every once in a while, but you can't brush out the acid destroying your liver that comes from alcohol. i assume it wasn't an entirely serious argument but your little wink emote as if you thought you were clever baited me.
The majority of drunk drivers out there aren't hardened criminals with connections to the mafia that can illegally brew them drinks.
If the majority of people vote to give up alcohol, there won't be a huge criminal organization that immediately steps up to provide black market beer, because there would be very little demand for it. After all, the ban is VOLUNTARY. This isn't 1920's Prohibition, where everybody was against it and nobody followed it.
On June 16 2011 20:04 Plague1503 wrote:
A better solution would be absolutely DRACONIC penalties for DUI. Like tens of thousands of dollars or months in prison. If you kill someone while drunk driving, you get murder two, no discussion.
Fix'd.
People already do get 2nd degree murder charges in some cases.
http://greensboro.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/update-ian-michael-smith-charged-with-seconddegree-murder-several-felonies.aspx
On June 16 2011 20:24 zatic wrote:
Germany: 82 Mio, Alcohol related car fatalities: 428 (Numbers from 2008)
85% of the population drinks. Germany has the 5th highest alcohol consumption in the world. Random fact not supported by numbers: There is generally no speed limits on German highways.
Following your logic that makes 162,850 drinkers per fatality.
Maybe you guys should just not drive under the influence instead of discussing a ban of alcohol.
Different nations have different car ownership rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
Unites States has 779 cars per 1000 people.
Germany has 558 cars per 1000 people. USA has more idiots with cars than Germany.
Different nations also have different population densities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
United States has 32 people/km^2.
Germany has 229 people/km^2. This means more Germans live closer together. This means it is easier to organize a highly efficient public transportation system to bring drunk idiots home without them driving.
There's a reason why my OP only mentioned United States statistics. Different standards apply to different nations.
On June 16 2011 20:26 Skvid wrote:
@OP you are thinking 2dimentional about this, because you are not considering the lives that would be lost if the people couldn't drink, a lot of factors and nuances would arise... i'm sure everyone gets the point that im trying to make so i wont try to explain it any further.
The best approach is pretty much what society is doing right now, trying to raise the awareness of the dangers involved in alcohol abuse, so the people make decisions by themselves.
I really don't get this one, who is going to die from not drinking alcohol?
On June 16 2011 20:46 CaptainCrush wrote:
You claim an awful lot of factual information but still draw a factual tie with your statement "The American people, by having alcohol legal today, are essentially placing a price on our own heads"
I couldnt disagree more.
For starters, I'm not sure why this is an American thing, alcohol is legal in most, if not all countries around the globe. Secondly, if we are doing anything to put a price on our own heads, its the blatant stupidity often exhibited by so many people every day, not alcohol.
It's texting while driving, drug use, speeding, not getting enough sleep, etc, etc, etc. I am plenty responsible when I drink as many other people are. It's the stupid ones who put a price on the heads of themselves and others, not the ones who choose to drink.
This thread is about American alcohol usage only because other nations have different statistics regarding alcohol related traffic fatalities. Whether this be from different cultural attitudes, better public transportation system, you name it.
Also, it's funny that you should bring up texting while driving. Many states are making it illegal to use your cellphone with one hand while driving. You must be using a handsfree setup, and even then some places are outlawing that as well.
Also, yes you are placing a price on the heads of your fellow people. By not voting to voluntarily give up alcohol for the lives of a few, you are given idiots a greater chance to be idiotic. You are then weighing your personal pleasure of responsible alcohol usage against the lives of those who are killed by idiots misusing alcohol.
On June 16 2011 20:48 Madoga wrote:
You could allso forbid unhealthy food, since this is the biggest cause for premature death in modern society.
Moreover, if you would ban alcohol, it would become exciting for teenagers/adolescents and instead of selling it legally (in usa 21+ i think) they would buy it illigal, which would increase crime rates and maybe even increase accidents caused by alcohol.
Besesides that I doubt the main problem is alcohol, I think crowd behavious is a more important factor in most riots.
More than unhealthy food, the AMOUNT of food that modern people consume is what is killing them.
You can eat 1500 calories worth of pig lard and raw sugar if you wanted, you still won't become obese. You would probably even be nutritionally deficient, and LOSE weight.
However, you can eat 3000 calories of salad, lean protein, and carbs and be a fat motherfuker.
But, that's an argument for a different thread.
Teenagers already illegally consume alcohol before they reach legal age. How many people that you know who drink now, did not drink before being legal?
Just because people break laws doesn't mean laws shouldn't exist in the first place.
On June 16 2011 20:52 Sadist wrote:
lots of self righteous posters here. Alcohol is a fun social drug, it calms nerves for many people and allows them to socialize without the self imposed pressure of being out and about. Some people dont like alcohol, fine, they have probably had a bad experience with it. If you haven't tried it and drink not to drink while at the same time looking down on people........
you are ridiculous.
So in your view, it's perfectly OK that your social life hinges so heavily on alcohol? Without it you wouldn't be able to function at a party or something?
Isn't that more of a personal, psychological issue on YOUR end, rather than us sober people "not being able to have fun?"
On June 16 2011 20:55 Probe1 wrote:
Ineffective and authoritarian?
Why do we always suggest banning something instead of teaching responsibility? Wtf Humanity, w t f?
Everybody who drinks and drives KNOWS it's wrong. But, they're drunk and don't give a shit, and they're moronic anyway even when sober.
Education only works on the uneducated. This is like saying "we need to educate people so they know smoking is harmful!" Everybody who smokes today knows it causes cancer. They do it anyway.
On June 16 2011 21:00 VGhost wrote:
I would give up drinking if I knew for certain that it would either prevent me from being responsible for a death, or that my example would keep someone else from doing something that would lead to death.
But as-is, I don't believe my drinking is going to cause deaths (because I am careful about how much I drink, what I do afterwards, etc.), so I see no reason to stop.
Not sure how to approach the poll.
It's not about you personally being responsible. It's about making it harder for irresponsible individuals to acquire things that will make them MORE irresponsible. Particularly when this case of irresponsibility can get innocent bystanders killed.
Would you give up alcohol to make it harder for idiots to get drunk and kill people?
On June 16 2011 21:05 Probe1 wrote:
The whole debate is just as squalid as a would you trade 1 life for 1,000,000 scenario.
Except, this argument is would you trade 1 life for the Friday night drinking party of 1,000,000.
1 life is not worth 1000000 lives. But, is 1 life worth 1,000,000 people's Friday night buzz?
On June 16 2011 21:09 mcc wrote:
Banning alcohol ,even assuming it is a good idea, would just simply not work. Black market would appear immediately and incredible amounts of money would have to be sunk into enforcing it. Just punish harshly DUI, not much better can be done.
Already addressed, NUMEROUS times.
Voluntary, self-imposed ban by the majority of the population in a vote = very little people trying to get drunk on the black market = no crime rings making illegal booze.
But, are the majority willing to self-impose this ban?
On June 16 2011 21:16 simansh wrote:Show nested quote +
General Point:
This post isn't about whether our politicians should bring back Prohibition against the majority's will. That will only lead to an increased demand for black market alcohol, giving crime rings increased funding and such.
Show nested quote +
"Would you voluntarily give up drinking and vote to ban it, if it meant less drunk driving fatalities?"
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if we would vote to ban alcohol in order to save people's lives. Or if we would personally stop alcohol to save lives? Also both of these questions seem really hypothetical to me, so could someone clear this up?
Would you, given the choice, voluntarily give up alcohol consumption and vote to make it illegal, thereby making it harder for idiots to get drunk and kill people?
On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
In my opinion we just need to come together as a society and mature at earlier ages. Wine and Beer are both beverages that are drunk because of how they taste. They have their social contexts and should not be banned or stopped to be consumed.
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly. The only reasons people continue to drink it are either that they have an addiction that they need to feed or that they want to numb their emotional or physical pain/stress. Alternatively they keep doing it to be cool or fit into a certain crowd.
We need to get rid of the fratboy mentality that getting drunk off your ass is something cool and awesome. It's childish and pointless. Enjoy alchoholic beverages that you think taste good, not the ones that you think makes you cool.
Did you know that many Asian countries eat a type of melon called the Bittermelon? As the name suggests, the melon tastes bitter. In fact, the more bitter the melon is, the more valued and "delicious" it is considered.
Same thing with hard liquor. I know people who enjoy the taste of Whiskey. Asian people in particular love drinking rice wine, or sake, etc, which has a very strong flavor.
Are these people drinking to be cool? The point is, people enjoy the taste of some very foul-tasting stuff, and they eat it because they enjoy it, not because it is cool.
On June 16 2011 21:50 Ibaneyou wrote:
I hate they way the OP worded the bolded part (I assume an edit?), it made an already stupid sounding post even worse.
The correlation between alcohol sales and drunk driving deaths is obvious, but there's no correlation between MY drinking and ANY drunk driving deaths.... Hell, I don't even drive.
Any1 who drives drunk is as bad as some1 who murders or... but that doesn't mean we should ban knives, as a way to reduce stabbing deaths.
It seems like the relative polls for other crimes would be...
"Would you give up cooking with knives to it meant less stabbing deaths?"
or "Would you give up sex if it meant less rapes?"
Complete BS topic.
Except cooking is a vital part of the diet of many cultures, without which people would starve. Very little people in the world can dig up a carrot or catch a fish, and just eat it without cooking, peeling, or at least gutting and removing the scales and whatnot.
Sex is a vital part of the survival of our species.
Putting alcohol up there in importance with sex and cooking really shows you have no grasp on relativity. You might as well suggest we ban breathing because of the number of people who die to anger-induced heart attacks from hearing their enemy's verbal insults.
General Point 2:
I've been hearing the same arguments over and over even though I already addressed them, so here is the final response to them all:
1. Banning alcohol will cause more crime - Not if a large majority voluntarily gives it up and votes to ban it. Then, only a small minority will be on the black market looking for a drink, so there will only be a relatively small rise in crime funding.
2. I don't drink and drive, so I don't see why I should give up drinking - If you, and a large majority of your peers gives up responsible alcohol usage, you make it much, much harder for some dumbass on a weekend to get drunk and kill someone with his/her car. So, while not PERSONALLY saving lives, you are saving lives by not giving an idiot a tool to be more idiotic.
From this point on, I will not be responding to any of the above arguments unless something new and compelling is brought up. I apologize if you made another point and it was lost in the sea of posts, just remind me again and I'll respond to it.
|
there is no need to remove alcohol or drugs from our lives, ppl just need to be educated and use everything with moderation.
|
Life sucks, then you die.
Alcohol helps sometimes.
In my opinion, people who are brain dead enough to drink and drive are going to find some other way to kill people, regardless if alcohol is available or not.
|
I hate people saying.. it's not alcohol's fault that people act crazy just because they are drunk..
well sure it fucking is... alcohol is the direct cause of the persons mind at the time...
Same thing with gun nuts saying... well.. guns dont kill people... people kill people !
Yeah.. that's true bros.. but I think the gun helps .. don't you?
If you can't ensure that people will do stupid shit... drunk or not... at least u CAN do something about what they do it with.. which is alcohol, which is legal, massly consumed and cheap...
It's a weapon for some, and it will continue to be a weapon, until measures are taken.
|
Why would me giving up drinking lead to less fatalities? i dont understand your logic and and your post makes no sense.
|
On June 17 2011 00:06 Turo wrote:
Life sucks, then you die.
Alcohol helps sometimes.
In my opinion, people who are brain dead enough to drink and drive are going to find some other way to kill people, regardless if alcohol is available or not.
You are more prone to do stupid shit while under the influence... just like several studies has shown that you are more likely to have an accident or somehow commit a crime with a firearm, a knife or another weapon that you carry or have by you...
|
Educate learn and evolve.
|
Dumbest thread i've ever seen. Let's get rid of driving and guns and cigarettes and condoms while we're at it, that way everyone just stays at home reading poetry and watching FOX news.
|
@Madcow, You're not stupid, by a long shot. (Notice I didn't say but, like most people may =P )
So I'll say why I would rather have him killed, him, just he is a threat to himself and society. Or better yet for your sake I'd hope they make an affordable breathalyzer that is forced on vehicles of friends and families loved ones >.> which don't allow them to drink and drive.
If Alcohol was banned, I would simply drink tea, I drink more tea than alcohol anyway, and when I make a good batch it's better than alcohol. But tea is an art and takes forever to master how to make a perfect cup.
|
I love the part where Alcohol takes the heat for driving accidents.
CARs KILL PEOPLE NOT Booze!
Alcohol is not the worst thing out there. Tabacco is twenty times more hazardous for people. Sure it won't get people to riot or bash each other.
But it does other shit to society as a whole.
Alcohol is wonderful when you're having a date with a beautiful women 1 on 1.
If you wanted to have good sex, you should never want to ban alcohol cause man girls "RELEASE" their inner desires easier .
I will keep my riots, and keep my booze. As for drunk driving. Car's are the problem not idiots. Sure idiots are a problem too, just in their own class.
|
On June 17 2011 00:10 Jonas wrote:Dumbest thread i've ever seen. Let's get rid of driving and guns and cigarettes and condoms while we're at it, that way everyone just stays at home reading poetry and watching FOX news.
It's a pretty useless thread and wishful thinking at best.
People should live and let live. Taking alcohol away is out of the question so yeah, opinions from here on out are pretty meaningless because it's not going to happen.
If people spent more time worrying about how to live their life and less time worrying about how other people live their lives then the world would be a much better place.
|
I drink responsibly so no I wouldn't give it up
|
I like liquor and people die from all sorts of things. The utility I gain from driving is greater than the increased risk created by idiots. Personally think the idiots would find other ways to kill me so I wouldn't increase liquor taxes etc.
|
im somewhat of a big drinker.
i wouldn't give it up because its too much good.
interesting math and stats on drinkers and driving fatalities.
good research.
unfortunately the argument is mute because it will not work.
maybe it would make a good drunk driving campaign add.
i love rum.
|
I read your post on page 9.
I think this is a question of priorities, and it seems to me that this is all an issue of freedom vs security. So in determining laws, and how a society should be run, would you value security more than freedom in each case, or freedom over security? What worries me about your example is that it sets the precedent that in many other cases, security should trump freedom for the lowest common denominator (the 'dumb' people  ). In the end, people's freedoms would be limited by what "stupid" people may or may not do. Moreover I think your argument could be extended to say that we should limit all of our freedoms that carry any risk of danger. So...I would ask you, would you really want to live in a society that is limited in such a way?
Personally I think that freedom is a very fundamental part of what makes us human. With freedom there are always risks, but they are worth it. You can't really experience joy without having known its opposite, and things that can be used properly can always be misused. If you want to live in a society that has no dangers, I fear that you would basically be reducing people to a state where they can't truly enjoy themselves, because there's that percentage chance that someone could use it negatively, or something could go wrong. Then you might say, well you might be happy, but there's a percentage chance that people who do this will *die*, or *kill* other people. Therefore, we should stop doing what makes us happy, because there's a chance it could go wrong, or that someone will misuse it. But then..whats the point of life at all? There would be nothing to look forward to, because everything carries a risk of being misused. You have to take the good with the bad...and for this reason I would say the focus of society should be on maintaining freedoms, and ensuring security as a *secondary* goal.
So in this case, maintaining our right to drink, but then taking steps to ensure that that right can't be abused to hurt or kill themselves or other people in automobile accidents (among other possibilities).
Like GertHeart posted, you could implement a system where breathalysers are used in conjunction with the ignition system, such that people who have been drinking too much aren't allowed to start their car.
|
Uhhh, no, alcohol is fine. I brew my own beer and drink responsibly. The actions of the few should never restrict the freedom of the many.
I'm kind of appalled that this topic was even brought up.
|
I think a more appropriate poll would be: "Have you ever hurt someone while under the influence. If yes: was it fatal?"
Asking "Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths" is on par with the effectiveness of "earth hour" or dumb shit like that.
This is shocking cause it happened in Canada. If this was a soccer riot it wouldn't have been as outof place as it is.
People fucked up. That's life.
|
Banning alcohol isn't the solution. Neither is banning cars a good solution. Even electric cars aren't a good solution, because humans are fundamentally bad at controlling large, high-speed objects in the midst of other large, high-speed objects.
The proper solution to build a high-capacity public transportation system in every city, enabling people to stop using cars for day-to-day driving. Cars are more expensive (per rider), less efficient, and more dangerous than a subway or above-ground rail system. But they have the backing of the automotive industry, which, over the last century, has bought out and shut down public transportation systems in many cities. This of course benefits the automotive industry a lot more than it does the average citizen.
Ultimately, it will be found that personal automobiles were a early-game blunder, like queuing up five tanks in your first factory.
|
Remnants of the prohibition-era is the very reason we have so many alcohol related deaths. The ridiculous 21 drinking age along with a 16 driving age is a huge part of the problem. Drunk driving isn't nearly as bad in countries where there's sensible alcohol policies.
|
Prohibition created organized crime, which has degraded the US to this very day.
|
I really don't think you can just do simple division and find the worth of a life. I'm not an ethicist, but I'm a mathematician.
|
The primary point that this post boils down to is "voluntarily" giving up rights for the safety of ourselves and others. The problem with this argument is obvious. We have, through many historical experiments, learned what the ideal role for law and society is. The best government is that which governs least. Violations of the liberties of others, now that's where the law should and does have teeth. Namely, if a person gets drunk at home or at a bar, and is peacefully minding his own business and having a good time, who's to tell him he can't enjoy life? We are, after all, encouraged and afforded the liberty of pursuit of happiness. However, the moment a drunk person gets behind a car and becomes a menace to others, the law should and can intervene.
|
just obvious that it's ridiculously unfair to ban alcohol entirely because of drunk drivers.
and people will never allow it.
i don't drink. i don't smoke. but i would never cast any kind of vote to ban them entirely.
imo drunk drivers should just be punished a lot more.
|
I would never drink if it were to save lives, but I'm not going to responsible for deaths from drinking so it is kind of null, however I guess most would say that.
|
I don't really understand OP's argument.
The vast majority (read: nearly all) of fatalities that have alcohol as a main factor are due to someone breaking the law. That is why we have laws - so we can safely use alcohol. If you get in your car drunk and mow down a row of people it is the illegal activity of driving while drunk, not the legal activity of drinking that is the issue.
There are legal restrictions that are very stringent on alcohol, such as age/volume/locational limitations, but doing something illegal once drunk and causing a death is due to your illegal action, not the alcohol.
We all know that drink-driving, or selling alcohol to a 12 year old is illegal, because it can easily result in a death - that is why they are against the law. Partaking in those actions is what needs to be avoided, not removing alcohol from the equation.
Surely, people breaking the law is what causes alcohol-related deaths, not alcohol that is used legally. If you drink alcohol and then act within the law, you will cause no harm to yourself or others. If you act outside the law you will likely cause harm to yourself and others - but since when is that not the case, and why is alcohol special?
|
Alcohol is legal... but why is weed illegal? I mean think, in the end, they are very similar drugs. Yeah i love my beer and i´m not a weed smoker, but it´s unfair in some kind, is´nt it?
|
On June 16 2011 15:30 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure we in the US tried this once. It didn't work out too well.
This was pretty much my first thought as well.
Theoretically, it wouldn't end well - look at prohibition. Alcohol doesn't make you do anything, it's the person drinking, and their self control.
|
On June 17 2011 02:00 GurZtly wrote:
Alcohol is legal... but why is weed illegal? I mean think, in the end, they are very similar drugs. Yeah i love my beer and i´m not a weed smoker, but it´s unfair in some kind, is´nt it?
Also, how the hell is weed relevant ._.
EDIT: sorry for double posting, TL mobile is a bitch to use ^^.
|
|
|
If you think alcohol is not essential to some people you've never had a girlfriend.
|
I drink myself shitfaced on a regular basis, Never done anything bad.
Stupid topic, stupid people will always be stupid, it's a proven fact that alcohol doesn't turn you into someone you are not... you're just that bad person deep inside and need to come to terms with that problem and work it out, banning alcohol isn't how to stop people from being violent.
Really really stupid topic.
|
"This post is about whether you as an individual would voluntarily give up the pleasure of drinking if it meant that there were less stupid people out there getting drunk and driving, and killing people."
But that's the point - not drinking doesn't cause less deaths, only your potential own. As long as you drink responsibly I really don't see the point in this.
|
i can see myself giving up drinking.. I think the governed needs to be in control of selling it so we can get out of this debt(usa debt) =]
|
"Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths?"
It's a false premise. Even if it were possible for all Americans to come together and say, "Yes, we will abstain from alcohol" you would just see different kinds of deaths. People are idiots, and they consistently make poor choices. If the choice to drive and drink is removed, they'll make another poor choice.
If you want to know if I would cease to participate in [activity x] in order to save lives, then the answer to that question is yes.
You just can't successfully argue that banning alcohol is a good solution, and you also have the weight of history against you.
If you want to end drunk driving, here's a way to do it:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/07/13/last-call-for-drunk-driving-posts/
|
You can get a license at 16, die for your country at 18, but not drink alcohol until 21. I think the problem is with your laws, not with alcohol. Starting at such a late age with no experience will lead to these kinds of problems, plus the fact that 16-year olds should never be allowed to drive in the first place. Look to other western countries, compare statistics, and think about why they're different. Make appropriate action based on these thoughts. With alcohol, experience is the key.
|
On June 17 2011 02:30 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 02:00 GurZtly wrote:
Alcohol is legal... but why is weed illegal? I mean think, in the end, they are very similar drugs. Yeah i love my beer and i´m not a weed smoker, but it´s unfair in some kind, is´nt it? ... They're not very similar at all other than the fact they they are both mind-altering. How many people die because of alcohol every year? How many people die because of marijuana every year? How many people get diagnosed with serious long-term illnesses from alcohol every year? How many people get diagnosed with serious long-term illnesses from marijuana every year? How many families are ruined/scarred because of alcohol-influenced violence/abuse every year? How many families are ruined/scarred because of marijuana-influenced violence/abuse every year? How many babies are born with deformities because of alcohol every year? How many babies are born with deformities because of marijuana every year? I could keep going, but I shouldn't have to, because on every count alcohol is waaaaaay worse than marijuana. I shouldn't have to cite this because at this point it's actually common knowledge. One can argue that there are more alcohol-users than marijuana-users, and I guess that's probably true, but if you then take these same questions in terms of percentage of users, the story is pretty much the same. Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 02:29 DuckS wrote:On June 17 2011 02:00 GurZtly wrote:
Alcohol is legal... but why is weed illegal? I mean think, in the end, they are very similar drugs. Yeah i love my beer and i´m not a weed smoker, but it´s unfair in some kind, is´nt it? Also, how the hell is weed relevant ._. Because when compared to alcohol, the fact that it is illegal is utterly ridiculous. How the hell isn't it relevant?
Because Laws are not based on what is the most healthy, tobacco is poison its allowed because of culture.
|
A more practical approach would be to have cars only work when you are sober. Problem solved, no need to ban alcohol.
|
On June 17 2011 03:50 Tachyon wrote:
You can get a license at 16, die for your country at 18, but not drink alcohol until 21. I think the problem is with your laws, not with alcohol. Starting at such a late age with no experience will lead to these kinds of problems, plus the fact that 16-year olds should never be allowed to drive in the first place. Look to other western countries, compare statistics, and think about why they're different. Make appropriate action based on these thoughts. With alcohol, experience is the key.
I heard a while back somewhere that they wanted to reduce the drinking age to 18 because people would drink more responsibly at a younger age or something like that. Has anyone heard of this also? I wanted to bring this up and see what you guys think about it. I want to bring a little more discussion to this matter because I love TL hehehehe.
|
I am 19, started driving at 16, and started drinking at 18. I have never driven drunk. I've already lost 3 friends to driving under the influence. Our education program is already starting to make headway in reducing the number of drinking and driving deaths, and personal experiences like mine will ensure that there are fewer future drunk drivers.
And like other posters have said, Germany has it right. Almost nobody dies there because the government actually maintains the roads, and people don't drink and drive for cultural reasons. We need to try and achieve this with drunk driving education in schools and on tv. It could also be a to introduce kids to alcohol at an even younger age, 16 or so. (German teenagers are allowed to drink watered-down alcohol, e.g. half beer/lemonade, in restaurants if they are with their parents.)
In terms of technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device
Ford has already presented some ideas about outfitting cars with this, and I believe legislation was introduced to Congress about a year ago that would make these mandatory by somewhere around 2015 (don't believe it passed.)
I'm sure that the NHTSA is already well on its way to researching these however.
|
I'd only give it up if I decided to convert to Islam or Mormonism.
|
I don't see how the OP is leaving any room for discussion by creating a hypothetical situation in which the majority actually wanted to get rid of alcohol. Obviously the main issue is that most people do not want to give up their right to drink. By simply saying what if everyone was different and wanted to, then obviously there would be less drunk driving fatalities. If such a large majority already had those feelings toward drinking, making it illegal wouldn't be necessary because people already are not drinking and hence creating less drunk driving instances without the passing of some law.
|
On June 17 2011 02:30 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 02:00 GurZtly wrote:
Alcohol is legal... but why is weed illegal? I mean think, in the end, they are very similar drugs. Yeah i love my beer and i´m not a weed smoker, but it´s unfair in some kind, is´nt it? ... They're not very similar at all other than the fact they they are both mind-altering. How many people die because of alcohol every year? How many people die because of marijuana every year? How many people get diagnosed with serious long-term illnesses from alcohol every year? How many people get diagnosed with serious long-term illnesses from marijuana every year? How many families are ruined/scarred because of alcohol-influenced violence/abuse every year? How many families are ruined/scarred because of marijuana-influenced violence/abuse every year? How many babies are born with deformities because of alcohol every year? How many babies are born with deformities because of marijuana every year? I could keep going, but I shouldn't have to, because on every count alcohol is waaaaaay worse than marijuana. I shouldn't have to cite this because at this point it's actually common knowledge. One can argue that there are more alcohol-users than marijuana-users, and I guess that's probably true, but if you then take these same questions in terms of percentage of users, the story is pretty much the same. Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 02:29 DuckS wrote:On June 17 2011 02:00 GurZtly wrote:
Alcohol is legal... but why is weed illegal? I mean think, in the end, they are very similar drugs. Yeah i love my beer and i´m not a weed smoker, but it´s unfair in some kind, is´nt it? Also, how the hell is weed relevant ._. Because when compared to alcohol, the fact that it is illegal is utterly ridiculous. How the hell isn't it relevant? You're right. Alcohol should be even more illegal than marijuana! It's clearly much worse, so it wouldn't be fair if alcohol was legal. We must ban alcohol right now for the sake of justice. Poor little weed is suffering from prejudice and double standard, let's bring alcohol to make it some company ^^
|
making it illegal would just make more people do it.. look at marijuana.
From a highschooler perspective, if alcohol and marijuana was legal, a lot more people wouldnt do it because it isn't anything "special"
|
Frankly I like the use of alcohol as a Darwinian natural selection process. If people are dumb enough to do stuff drunk they're probably dumb enough to do similar things sober as well.
It must be terrible to lose someone in a drunk driving accident (both victim and perpetrator) or any other inebriated stupidity, but to claim that alcohol was the sole reason that people rioted in Vancouver is really quite ridiculous. They riot cause they're passionate. The same thing happened in Philadelphia when the Phillies won the world series a few years ago and alcohol was not the fuel of their fire so to speak.
I'm curious how many people avoid alcohol due to their age, bad experiences, choice or religion in this thread as the few people I've seen say they stay away from it might not be privy to an actual drinking culture that many college towns in America have created and many other countries of the world. Most times the drinking cultures actually promote economic advantages rather than be detrimental to the safety of others.
|
Why cant you just ban alcohol at hockey games in vancouver and outlaw drunk driving. Your logic that alcohol leads to death is kind of idiotic.
|
It's not my responsibility to keep idiots from being idiots. So no, I wouldn't.
|
Hmm, overeating point, but how many of those deaths are these drunk people themselves? As long as they're counting the ones killing themselves I think the numbers are skewed. You should only count the death if it's not the person who is drunk
|
A more practical approach would be to have cars only work when you are sober. Problem solved, no need to ban alcohol.
Wow... I... Wow. How practical is this? Take a breathalyzer to turn on your car? One of these things only costs 20 bucks...
|
I'm curious, does anyone here feel sorry for anyone who kills or hurts themselvs while drunk? Accidental stuff, of course.
|
There are electric one, and this system is in place in a few cars.
But what if you're a little bit drunk but you need your car to save someone's life ? What if such a system failed once ?
Not a good answer.
|
OP you probably need to adjust your thread, since your question is more of a philosophical question than anything else. And people are interpreting it more as a call for prohibition.
Would I give up drinking if it meant less deaths. Well yes I would but it would depend how many deaths it would prevent. Drinking does have its advantages; a cold beer after a stressful day is pretty nice.
Also your statistics are going to be skewed somewhat. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities is somewhat generic. Does that mean a person had 1 beer, does it mean they were over the legal limit (which varies in different states), or does it mean they were hammered drunk?
But in contrast to your topic, I'd like to bring up my own:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drowsiness or fatigue is the principal cause of up to 100,000 police-reported passenger vehicle crashes every year, killing at least 1,500 people and injuring 71,000.
As you can see thousands of people are affected by this. Would you be willing to give up driving while moderately tired, or driving during the night time, in order to save lives?
The point is, it's not alcohol that kills people it's irresponsibility while operating a 2ton vehicle.
|
Engineering gave us atomic weapons and the ability to obliterate life on a hither-to-unforseen scale and the ability to cause untold suffering on others. It has also given us tremendous increases in standards of living, has elevated millions from poverty and has unquestionably improved every one of our lives.
Alcohol is like engineering. It's not intrinsically good or bad, its what people do with it that makes the difference.
|
This thread is just too idealistic, banning alcohol isn't realistic and the societal cost of doing so would probably exceed the benefits that you're espousing.
I'm not going to get into the prohibition angle because it's been beaten to death but you have to look at the war on drugs that the US has been waging for the last 30-40 years and how ineffective it's been in curtailing drug use. Not only has the US spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this, they've imprisoned millions of victimless criminals, people that use drugs and sell drugs to consenting adults. When you consider that lower class people are the most likely to use drugs in the first place because of their poor position in life, imprisoning them pretty much guarantees that they won't be able to lift themselves out of it. The same thing would continue on if you banned alcohol, spending money on the enforcement of the laws and the imprisonment of alcohol users is just a stupid waste at a time when the US is floundering because of wasteful spending.
|
As i don't dirve drunk i dont see why i would give it up.
|
On June 17 2011 04:33 flavorless wrote:Show nested quote +
A more practical approach would be to have cars only work when you are sober. Problem solved, no need to ban alcohol.
Wow... I... Wow. How practical is this? Take a breathalyzer to turn on your car? One of these things only costs 20 bucks...
I've already seen similar things installed for previous drunk drivers. Not sure which program/country it was though. They do exist however.
Now personally, I would not give up drinking alcohol, if it meant less drunk drivers. This is because, I as an individual, am responsible while drinking, and don't do things like that. However, I've seen your response to that in the OP, so I'd like to make a counterargument. Drinking and driving, in my eyes, has less to do with alcohol consumption, and more to do with the bad judgement of individuals. What makes you think that banning alcohol would stop these same individuals who previously would have drank and driven, from carelessly killing innocents in other settings, again due to their predisposed bad judgement?
|
If u drink and drive u cant handle alcohol, most people can handle it, if u continue to drink when u cant handle it u are an idiot. I dont restrict myself because of idiots.
Slightly Offtopic:
I wont give up drinking alcohol because i will never drive when im drunk, I won't stop playing starcraft to be more productive because i already do enough, i won't stop deltagliding because its dangerous, it is worth it, i wont stop to smoke a cigarr with drinks every year because its not healty, i wont give up any of the small things in life that make it good to live for a grey and meaningless super-safe life.
|
Imagine the suicide rate, if you banned alcohol.
|
Banning drugs is such a bad politic,It maybe sounds litlle bit wierd,but key to soluition is prevention not baning.In usa if you are drug user, you are like criminal and thats bad.Look at situation at Mexico they started war vs drugs and whats the result?drugs are still everyvere and thousands and thousands ppl died because of it.Iam not saying dont do anything vs drugs,But decriminalized drug users and do more for prevention is better than just arrest anyone who smokes pot or snurf coke.And thats pretty much same with alcohol.Its not alcohols fault that someone drinking and drive and the solution isnt ban alcohol.Solution is learn kids more about alcohol and prevent shit like that.If u ban something it doesnt mean people going to stop drinking it only mean black market with alcohol is going to grow.Iam for legalization of some lighter drugs like marihuana and cocaine,its long way and hard goal but its the right way.
Anyways sorry for my bad english this is pretty much everything I want to say.I hope its sounds clear,its pretty hard for me to express some things in english sometimes...
peace
|
On June 16 2011 15:33 sCfO20 wrote:rofl Honestly, I don't give a damn about alcohol. But, it's not the alcohol that kill people, or make people do stupid shit. It's about you not having control over yourself. Smoke bud, this shit will never happen.
Hehe I was going to suggest bud as well, it never affected my driving at all. In fact I drove much safer o_O I for one wouldn't really care too much if alcohol was banned. I do drink most nights but I would probably start smoking again if alcohol were banned. However if alcohol were to be banned then crime rates would certainly go up due to it being a high demand on the black market. Because of this there really is no right answer :\ But the people who voted "no" to giving it up to save lives definitely picked the wrong answer.
|
Prohibition, ahh the creator of real organized crime syndicates. Humans have laws for reasons, you break them you are held responsible if caught. Humans have to realize things dont make us break laws, its our self that choices to break laws. If a man.women is drunk/high and breaks a law its silly they blame it on the substances/circumstances they processed the information and acted on it.
If it becomes illegal, do you really think these problems, and substances will go away? The facts were when booze was illegal drinking went up, and when it was turned legal again drinking went down. You will get new old problems like bathtub gin with diluted chemicals in it that will kill you or make you very sick for them to make a bigger buck. Yes I have studied this in college was interesting. Although it helped out many poor family's down south so there children didn't have to work in coal mines, they could churn and run moonshine, Junior Johnson comes to mind he was pardoned by Ronald Reagan for his moonshine running, Ah yes the Dawn of the Nascar age! ( left Turn left turn left turn! )
|
If we ban alcohol then we should ban cell phones too.
They cause accidents and fatalities due to people talking on cell phones and texting while driving.
|
I only drink around 5times a year so I have no problem giving it up if it would mean irresponsible people would stop drinking too. Would be soo good for the world economy in every way too.
Unfortunately this only works in theory as pretty much everyone mentions and argues about.
|
On June 16 2011 22:10 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 21:51 zatic wrote:On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly. OK I would have liked to contruct a well thought out argument here, but I'll just say: You are flat out and completely wrong about this. agreed.. whiskey is the best shit ever.. tastes hellova lot better than beer... feeding an addiction am i? I drink perhaps 2 times a month max... but whiskey is still damn great I'm more addicted to gaming if anything... totally invalid statement about hard liquor
It's not invalid. Did you like whiskey the first time you drank it? Did you like it the second time? What about the third? No, you did it to be manly and cool. Somewhere along the line you started liking it and that's probably a mixture of you getting used to the taste and liking the "bite" of a strong alchoholic beverage. Of course there are things that taste worse than whiskey etc but in comparison to most other beverages I think it tastes really bad.
|
No, I wouldn't give it up. If you banned alcohol, how would the majority release their tension from the daily grind? It would be the suicide of a country. Also it wouldn't stop people getting a hold of it, [insert any drug here].
Now raising the price, that's an option. In parts of the UK for instance, the price of alcohol is absurdly low, thus leading to a lot of binge drinking in many cities.
Anyway, alcohol is great! 
|
On June 16 2011 22:31 Giggsy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. Really? Drink a nice single malt scotch and tell me it doesn't taste good.
I have and I can tell you it does not taste good. When I talk about "addiction" I don't necessarily mean harmful addiction. Just that it gets to the point where the product tastes better than it would the first few times because your body has a certain craving for it.
I challenge anyone to honestly tell me that the first time you tried whisky or vodka you loved it from the start. I do not believe that to be possible unless you're an alchoholic before trying it. Anything that you need to have a break in period to enjoy is not considered good in my opinion.
|
When the OP has to address why banning cars is a bad idea, I honestly question why people are even still posting in this thread.
|
On June 17 2011 05:54 StarBrift wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 22:31 Giggsy wrote:On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. Really? Drink a nice single malt scotch and tell me it doesn't taste good. I have and I can tell you it does not taste good. When I talk about "addiction" I don't necessarily mean harmful addiction. Just that it gets to the point where the product tastes better than it would the first few times because your body has a certain craving for it. I challenge anyone to honestly tell me that the first time you tried whisky or vodka you loved it from the start. I do not believe that to be possible unless you're an alchoholic before trying it. Anything that you need to have a break in period to enjoy is not considered good in my opinion.
I loved first vodka shot,loved second but fifth man.....fifth was terrible taste... :Q
|
On June 17 2011 05:49 Eatme wrote:
I only drink around 5times a year so I have no problem giving it up if it would mean irresponsible people would stop drinking too. Would be soo good for the world economy in every way too.
Unfortunately this only works in theory as pretty much everyone mentions and argues about.
LOL I DONT DRINK SO I DONT CARE IF NO ONE ELSE CAN DRINK.
If alcohol became illegal(p.s. you are an idiot if you think that will ever happen), I would be making a ton of money selling homebrew.
|
No, i do not want to be penalized because of other people's problems.
Call me insensitive. I call it normal.
|
This seems a bit odd. Drunk driving is illegal, but you are suggesting that if alcohol itself was illegal that people wouldn't drunk drive. I'm sure it'd be reduced, but can you really look at irresponsible drinkers and say that they would not drink if it were illegal?
To me that seems like arguing that by banning handguns you would reduce pre-meditated murder with guns because you have to be doing more illegal things to do it. Which... on second thought isn't all that illogical, and it isn't like drunk drivers are planning much of anything, let alone manslaughter.
I personally do not drink alcohol. I have yet to find one that I like the taste of, and drinking for the sake of getting drunk has always seemed rather stupid to me. I tried it once for a WoW raid because it had become popular, and I can see to some extent the appeal of being drunk if you are interested in gaining the attention of others or being more easily amused, but it serves no real purpose otherwise.
I think the easier comparison is to smoking and second hand smoke. Many people smoke (although fewer than drink) and in the past they had a lot more freedom of where they smoked. Over time it became more and more obvious that smoking was bad for you (insert entirely different debate here) and second hand smoke was a public health concern, so laws began cutting back on where people could smoke in public slowly making it harder and harder to smoke.
I imagine over time we'll see similar changes made surrounding alcohol, because as much as we love to taut our freedoms, it is hard to come up with a real argument defending the consumption of alcohol. Social progress usually slowly reduces or removes things like that, be it with an alternative, heavier restrictions, higher costs etc. I imagine it'll be substantially slower and still be at least a decade before we really start seeing it for alcohol though because it is consumed everywhere in the world, and is so socially acceptable and ingrained in our culture.
|
On June 17 2011 06:04 Unifex wrote:
No, i do not want to be penalized because of other people's problems.
Call me insensitive. I call it normal.
I think I'll call you sane.
|
Believe me, alcohol isn't the problem. I get even more peaceful when I get drunk. Alcohol is just a catalyst. The real problem is these people's attitudes.
|
I didn't read the whole wall of text, because I don't really think the topic is that worthwhile, but with the poll as worded:
What
The
EFFFFFFFF?
67% of TL would not stop drinking if it meant less deaths??????
I'm guessing all these people are thinking their drinking is not the cause of the deaths and that they would not stop drinking because it wouldn't actually save anybody since they don't drive or whatever, but that's not what the poll says. It says would you stop if it would directly save lives for reasons not stated. I've always drank responsibly and have never been drunk even once (don't feel like pushing those limits) but I would give up drinking if it would save people. Either that poll is very poorly worded and it means something other than what it says, or people are VERY heartless.
edit: or people just really like their booze.
|
On June 17 2011 06:07 Dagobert wrote:
Believe me, alcohol isn't the problem. I get even more peaceful when I get drunk. Alcohol is just a catalyst. The real problem is these people's attitudes.
pretty much this. the only way to really fix this problem would be to ban idiots, and there's really no way to do that. even without drugs, some people will always have terrible judgement and will cause harm to others.
|
banning alcohol won't result in less deaths. you asumption there is just not true.
Maybe less in traffic accidents, but look at mexico and you know why prohibition of any drug won't reduce any deaths.
and so your whole argument is pointless.
|
I read what you wrote, I do agree that alcohol and irresponsible individuals is an incredibly bad thing. Funny enough, I actually got drunk for the first time in 3-4 years 2 days ago at my friends beach house. It can be fun in a really retarded way, but If it meant people wouldn't die, I would gladly give it up. It generally taste like shit anyway.
|
As a beer enthusiast (no, that doesn't mean i like getting wasted every other night, it means i like good beer) i'm disappointed that this whole thread misses the real issue.
It's about socialisation. The idea that it's "cool and manly" to drink and get wrecked is a stain on modern western culture. The fact that the most popular beers - especially in America and the UK - are flavourless piss-water is damning evidence that the "drink to get wasted" attitude is too prevelant. I drink complex-flavoured beers that are more of an acquired taste and i drink them more often than not with other family members or my girlfriend, because i enjoy the taste and the light buzz. It greases the wheels of conversation.
The problem isn't alcohol inherantly, the problem is people's attitudes and mis-use. I suggest education and information, as well as clamping down harder on drunken behaviour - especially drink-driving. In the UK we have TV adverts fairly often about drink-driving and i know that in Ireland they have some particularly graphic ones. I'm not convinced about the merits of shock-value but informing people is surely better than being a killjoy for the responsible ones.
|
For the people saying this drug should be outlawed... you are incorrect. No drug should be outlawed. If you are American you are especially hypocritical, as your nation professes the concepts of freedom and liberty. If you look up the definition of liberty, you will see a blatant contradiction between such definition and the concept of government regulated/restricted drug consumption. To these people I have described above; if you feel you are incapable of controlling yourself on this drug; please do not use it. Please do not generalize all people as being incapable of recreational ingestion because of your inferior drug tolerance.
|
Don't really care about saving strangers' lives. I do care about getting comfortable while watching GSL tho.
I understood the poll and I stand by my vote. There's 6 billion of us and there will be more to come. I'm really not into that business where we need to maximize an already plentiful organism. The statistical analysis for the cost of alcohol is interesting though. I have to agree, however, that the freedom of 13,000 individuals is well worth 1 life.
Personally I value my own freedom over everything else. If I had to wipe out an entire country to gain freedom for myself I would.
|
A few years ago this might have really been a question for me but now I really do just stick to the ganja.
|
I would give up drinking if it would mean less deaths.
However, I would not give up my rights to drink, I mean if they were taken away by the government.
So, in a perfect world where we all agree to not drink, I would give it up. I would not go down peacefully if it was made illegal.
|
On June 17 2011 05:50 StarBrift wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 22:10 ZergOwaR wrote:On June 16 2011 21:51 zatic wrote:On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly. OK I would have liked to contruct a well thought out argument here, but I'll just say: You are flat out and completely wrong about this. agreed.. whiskey is the best shit ever.. tastes hellova lot better than beer... feeding an addiction am i? I drink perhaps 2 times a month max... but whiskey is still damn great I'm more addicted to gaming if anything... totally invalid statement about hard liquor It's not invalid. Did you like whiskey the first time you drank it? Did you like it the second time? What about the third? No, you did it to be manly and cool. Somewhere along the line you started liking it and that's probably a mixture of you getting used to the taste and liking the "bite" of a strong alchoholic beverage. Of course there are things that taste worse than whiskey etc but in comparison to most other beverages I think it tastes really bad.
I have enjoyed whiskey since the first time I have consumed it. Maybe you should try Jameson whiskey mixed with root-beer. Make a rootbeer/whiskey float (trademark ). You use the words " in comparison to most other beverages I think it tastes really bad.", but still insist anyone who enjoys the test is subconsciously deceiving themselves for some sort of ego buffer. You have simply made an invalid statement, as you yourself apply subjective reasoning/justification to an objective generalization. I am amazed at the amount of people in this thread who think they can make generalizations about all humans.
|
On June 17 2011 05:54 StarBrift wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 22:31 Giggsy wrote:On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. Really? Drink a nice single malt scotch and tell me it doesn't taste good. I have and I can tell you it does not taste good. When I talk about "addiction" I don't necessarily mean harmful addiction. Just that it gets to the point where the product tastes better than it would the first few times because your body has a certain craving for it. I challenge anyone to honestly tell me that the first time you tried whisky or vodka you loved it from the start. I do not believe that to be possible unless you're an alchoholic before trying it. Anything that you need to have a break in period to enjoy is not considered good in my opinion.
How did you drink it? Most people who say that just poured room temperature drinks and went eww. I am sure warm Petron tastes meh too, but on the rocks with a twist its delicious.
Also what you are describing is acquired taste, not addiction. Many foods with zero addictive properties work like this.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51481 Posts
Touchy subject as i would put it, in the sense of banning alcohol.
However, i for one am all for this, i think there are way too many cons to pros of alcohol and what effects it has on peoples state and state of mind in public situations.
To start with, drink driving is one very big con as you pointed out. Secondly the amount of money here in the UK we spend on NHS bills pumping stomachs for people who cant say "no" when they have had too much or "no" to stop drinking and continue on in a merry state, not a paraletic state.
However, the amount of Tax the goverment makes on Alcohol means it will never ever be banned or made illegal, theres just too much money to be lost.
|
On June 17 2011 05:50 StarBrift wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 22:10 ZergOwaR wrote:On June 16 2011 21:51 zatic wrote:On June 16 2011 21:49 StarBrift wrote:
Now hard liquor is where the big problem is imo (Whiskey, Vodka etc). It does not taste good. Any pleasure you get from drinking hard liquor is if you are feeding an addiction. The only reasons people start drinking hard liquor is to be cool or manly. OK I would have liked to contruct a well thought out argument here, but I'll just say: You are flat out and completely wrong about this. agreed.. whiskey is the best shit ever.. tastes hellova lot better than beer... feeding an addiction am i? I drink perhaps 2 times a month max... but whiskey is still damn great I'm more addicted to gaming if anything... totally invalid statement about hard liquor It's not invalid. Did you like whiskey the first time you drank it? Did you like it the second time? What about the third? No, you did it to be manly and cool. Somewhere along the line you started liking it and that's probably a mixture of you getting used to the taste and liking the "bite" of a strong alchoholic beverage. Of course there are things that taste worse than whiskey etc but in comparison to most other beverages I think it tastes really bad.
I love Whiskey the first time I drank it, I drink roughly once maybe twice a year. Alcohol that is, feeding that addiction am I?
I don't know a single person that enjoyed their first beer, I still can't drink it because it tastes like horsepiss.
but then again most peoples first tries of any of the good stuff is some cheap semi-homebrewn piece of shit, no wonder they don't like it.
My first time was with high quality Whiskey and I loved it. And if I had cravings for it, how come there is a very limited ammount of alcoholic drinks I enjoy. It goes against everything that addiction is, since if I actually craved it then the body would want it regardless if it's 300 dollar bottle or 1 dollar bottle with no label.
Add to that, that I can only drink it pure. Wouldn't my body want to mask that horrible taste if I hated it so much? For example I can not force myself to drink coke + hard liqour simply because I hate the sugary mess it becomes.
|
Don't drink alcohol anyways, so this was an easy decision. :p
|
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:General Point 2: I've been hearing the same arguments over and over even though I already addressed them, so here is the final response to them all: 1. Banning alcohol will cause more crime - Not if a large majority voluntarily gives it up and votes to ban it. Then, only a small minority will be on the black market looking for a drink, so there will only be a relatively small rise in crime funding. 2. I don't drink and drive, so I don't see why I should give up drinking - If you, and a large majority of your peers gives up responsible alcohol usage, you make it much, much harder for some dumbass on a weekend to get drunk and kill someone with his/her car. So, while not PERSONALLY saving lives, you are saving lives by not giving an idiot a tool to be more idiotic. From this point on, I will not be responding to any of the above arguments unless something new and compelling is brought up. I apologize if you made another point and it was lost in the sea of posts, just remind me again and I'll respond to it. Poll: Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths?No, I wouldn't. (520) 66% Yes, I would. (262) 34% 782 total votes Your vote: Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths? (Vote): Yes, I would.
(Vote): No, I wouldn't.
[/b]
Alright I will preface this by saying that I don't drink often but when I do I like to enjoy myself. I am against pretty much banning all drugs because banning it doesn't help a damn thing as seen by my experience as a peace officer. That being said, my opinion is free and worth just as much.
To your point 1.
If a large majority were to give it up and vote to ban it there wouldn't really need to be a ban in place to begin with. You're working on large assumptions here that rely totally on the good grace of human beings which...is just not going to happen.
However, let's look at your large majority thing and say that a large majority give up drinking and only a small minority fuel the black market. I'll be gracious and give you a fairly hefty majority...say 97%. That sounds really good right? 97% is a pretty much unheard of majority all clamoring for the same thing. So we have 3% fueling the black market. This number wouldn't be adequate to fund a criminal organization right?
You are completely wrong. In fact, there are real life and even more extreme examples that show you that you are completely wrong. Cocaine is used by roughly 3% of the population. Heroin is used by about 1.5% of the population. Both of them are multi billion dollar industries that fuel an ungodly amount of organized crime and accounts for by far the most gun seizures in my line of work. Prohibition just isn't going to work. To compound the above statement, both of those substances carry FELONY charges attached to them for any amount in possession. Obviously the threat of the police knocking down your door isn't a sufficient deterrent for these people and I highly doubt that Alcohol possession would be a felony in this case. If you do make it a felony to possess than it just drives up the cost that addicts are going to pay regardless. There will always be a demand for illicit drugs and you really aren't going to stop people from getting what they want. The only thing prohibition ever does is give money to people you do not want to make rich.
This all of course assumes you could get 97% on board for this and that will never happen.
Point 2.
My above counter to your first point works pretty well for this too. Regardless of that I just can't agree to give up something I use responsibly because some other asshole is irresponsible for it. This tactic may work on a teenager...but I drink because I make that decision for me...so that I can feel a good buzz in a manner that doesn't harm other people. Even if I'm in a group of thirty people and only the three of my close friends decide to have a drink I am totally comfortable with that.
So yea point two works for kids but that's about as far as it's going to go.
Banning Alcohol is just going to overload our already packed prisons, give more money to criminal cartels, and take choices out of the hands of responsible adults. Not a fan.
|
On June 17 2011 06:44 AIL wrote:
Don't drink alcohol anyways, so this was an easy decision. :p
Then you are making decisions lightly. I don't own a handgun, but I am not opposed to legal and responsible ownership. I don't smoke pot, but I am not opposed to legal and responsible use. I do happen to drink, but that is not why I oppose the idea in the OP. I oppose it because legal and responsible use are consistent with and required for the pursuit of happiness.
|
Just look what is going to happen to Steve Buscemi
|
You can make all kinds of laws to try and cut down on senseless deaths like these, but in the end there is no substitute for personal responsibility and common sense.
|
10387 Posts
if the world wasn't such a depressing place, then we wouldn't need alcohol
|
TAKE MY ALCOHOL AND ILL TAKE YOUR LIFE!
But seriously though, I enjoy drinking. Me quitting drinking is not going to change anything. I dont drink and drive, I dont get in fights, I dont do stupid shit drunk. Theres always a minority of dipshits who ruin a good thing for everyone.
|
Im drinking less and less alcohol as I grow up. One day I will simply stop at all.
This thread motivated me to do so more quickly
|
Northern Ireland25029 Posts
It's a mentality thing, at least as I see it anecdotally. I quite frequently get pretty damn drunk, but I don't go around wrecking things, start fights, or even shout, I can at least handle the drink. A lot of people don't seem to be able to and abdicate personal responsibility by using alcohol as an excuse.
There's a lot of people over here who can't, and it's not just violence and whatnot from alcohol that is a problem, it's the fact 50% of bars are bloody unbearable with drunken idiots.
I also personally hate smoking weed, but I don't see why the hell it is criminalised and alcohol isn't, likewise with a lot of stimulants
Whole drug war is ridiculous really
|
It worries me that so many people need to resort to substance abuse to have fun.
|
Drugs need to be taught to be respected and understood.
Trying to "protect" society from drugs only makes the public just less able to deal with it when it comes into their lives.
Discipline and respect, it's the lack of these qualities is whats causing so much destruction through drugs.
|
On June 16 2011 18:13 Thorakh wrote:
Alcohol is something disgusting. Somehow, weed is illegal, but the most dangerous drug of all is completely legal! Not only that, the majority of people on the planet even support drinking alcohol!
I will never touch alcohol. I'm not drinking a toxic that causes me to lose control over myself.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I can totally see how well 'drinking in moderation' is turning out![/sarcasm]
I'm drinking in moderation. Works out splendidly. Done some minor stupid / fun stuff drunk when I was younger, but nothing too serious.
I love being half drunk with a bunch of friends at a bar somewhere. It looses up your social skills, even more and it's easier to bond with people, as you get less critic.
Alcohol is toxic, but so is sugar.. Would you want to give that up as well?
Alcohol is FAR from the most dangerous drug. Herion is by far the most dangerous one, and it's immensly more addictive.
|
I'll just go ahead and say it.
Alcohol doesn't kill people (consumed safely, but that applies to everything, hi water). People kill people.
On a side note: can we get off this notion of trying to find legislative solutions to common sense problems? Significantly more children die to drowning in pools than from shooting each other with guns. You have ten 9/11's every year from obesity alone, institute a ban on calories? You can't approach everything you don't like, or that kills, with legislation.
|
Northern Ireland25029 Posts
I agree Nagano to an extent, but alcohol is so socially acceptable and can cause such drastic increases in violent behaviour that I don't see how else to regulate it other than legislatively?
Over here in the UK we've tried to change the whole image of over-drinking, but it's not having any sort of cultural impact, the drink-fuelled violence is still a big problem.
Over in the mainland of Europe, where drinking is generally treated differently, it's not such a massive problem, but in places lacking that culture of respectful moderate drinking, how else do you sort things?
|
I'm fine with alcoholic beverages being banned. My dad was an alcoholic, and passed away when I was 12 due to his liver failing, which was a direct consequence of his drinking. Drinking alcohol causes many more problems in the community and has little, if any, pros.
|
On June 16 2011 15:28 madcow305 wrote:
Travis, since you're reading this thread, could you wipe the poll, and make it a new one with the title as "Would you voluntarily give up drinking and vote to ban it, if it meant less drunk driving fatalities?"
Thanks.
I'm just going to ignore the other stuff for a moment...
Really OP?
You can't just create a second poll yourself and put where the old one was?
PS: the OP is horribly loaded, one in 14759 is roughly 0.0068% of people
I'm sure there are SO MANY other things that could be done to save lives than banning alcohol
For instance, why aren't you talking about banning smoking instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death
notice how alcohol isn't at the top?
Get this, if we pull a comparison of number of users vs number of health problems, it's much more stacked against smoking. And yet smoking is legal. Seriously bring up a list of the pros and cons of both, and tell me that you care about the alcohol related deaths when you could be convincing TL that smoking is terrible.
And no, I don't want smoking banned either, im just proving that the OP's point is moot.
|
Northern Ireland25029 Posts
@ Antares, I feel your pain man, my dad is still with us but struggled with it. Personally I don't mind alcohol abuse on that level, I feel it's a personal private matter or whatever. The problem with alcohol is when it spills over to violence on other persons, who often haven't touched a drop
|
You can't blame the alcohol for any wrong doing. I know plenty of people who get completely wasted and still are able to be civil and not do anything life threatening or any of that sort. Its the person consuming the product which is the cause, not the substance.
|
anyone who objectively looks at the damage that various drugs do to our society would inevitebly want to ban alcohol. unfortunately, prohibition doesnt really work, but things should be done to encourage people not to drink.
i think making some other drugs legal would be a good start. stoners always seem to drink less, but i guess that might depend on the people, be correlation and not causation, etc.
but srsly, the social costs of alcohol are ridiculously high. if it didnt have such a long tradition and so much money backing it up it would surely be illegal.
|
You have to be more careful with statistics. Just because there were 17,941 alcohol related fatalities in the US does not mean that all 17,941 fatalities were caused by the alcohol. There were 33,808 total automobile fatalities in the same time period. Note that the definition of an "alcohol related fatality" is when BAC is > 0.01. Drivers with a BAC >0.10 are 6-10 times more likely then sober drivers to get in fatal collisions.
I am not defending drunk driving, but you cannot say that all of the 17,941 fatalities would have been averted if the drivers were sober.
|
I think in time, our society will become mostly drug/alcohol free. Sure, we'll never get rid of it totally, but at the very least the consumption of drugs that impair your judgement (for recreation) will become outlawed and unacceptable in society.
It's already begun in recent years, to a degree! Long gone are the days when having a beer during a business lunch with a client was considered normal. Now its considered very unprofessional.
EDIT: Prohibition doesn't work because laws don't shape the society, the society shapes the laws. Until we begin to realize that alcohol is just as harmful (or more harmful) as other drugs, it's really not a suitable solution to the problem. Education and awareness are though, so kudos to those awareness groups that never let us forget how horrible it is to drink and drive.
|
I don't get drunk and drive, or drunk and riot, and so on.
My giving up recreational alcohol use wouldn't reduce the alcohol related crime rate at all, since I don't commit crimes while drunk.
Also, I assure you, not all of the rioters were drunk.
I think the huge subset of nerds that hate on booze so much are hilarious. It's part of human culture, it's here to stay. You don't need to participate but t-totalling nerds are the most tiresome thing ever.
|
|
|
You think that a responsible person giving up alcohol would have caused a death in the first place? No it's the reckless youth and alcoholics that cause these accidents and do you think they will give up alcohol? I don't. Things will remain the same as they were whether I give up alcohol or not.
|
I don't know how things work in the US, but in France, if someone gets involved in an accident under the influence of alcohol, or simply is controlled under the influence without having an accident, he may not even lose his license. Especially if it's his/her first offense. And even if he does, he'll be allowed to take the driving license tests again 6 months later, and he'll be driving again.
I feel even more strongly about this because I had my license revoked because I lost all the points of my license for being controlled several times by the same automatic radar for driving between 90-100 km/h (92-94-97) on a highway where the speed limit was 90 km/h (dunno how that translates into mph). It was 3 weekends in a row on my way home from my girlfriend's which means I didn't have the chance to even lie about who was driving the car (like every other French people would have done).
So basically, what I'm saying is : you are not paying attention to your speed counter for 3 seconds, and you're at risk of losing your license. On the other hand, you drink til you don't remember your name, and you drive, and you may end up NOT losing it. This is utter bullshit.
In my opinion, someone drinking and driving should immediately and FOR LIFE have his driving rights revoked. There is simply no excuse for such a lame and irresponsible behaviour.
How does it go in the States?
|
On June 17 2011 13:28 Husnan wrote:
I don't know how things work in the US, but in France, if someone gets involved in an accident under the influence of alcohol, or simply is controlled under the influence without having an accident, he may not even lose his license. Especially if it's his/her first offense. And even if he does, he'll be allowed to take the driving license tests again 6 months later, and he'll be driving again.
I feel even more strongly about this because I had my license revoked because I lost all the points of my license for being controlled several times by the same automatic radar for driving between 90-100 km/h (92-94-97) on a highway where the speed limit was 90 km/h (dunno how that translates into mph). It was 3 weekends in a row on my way home from my girlfriend's which means I didn't have the chance to even lie about who was driving the car (like every other French people would have done).
So basically, what I'm saying is : you are not paying attention to your speed counter for 3 seconds, and you're at risk of losing your license. On the other hand, you drink til you don't remember your name, and you drive, and you may end up NOT losing it. This is utter bullshit.
In my opinion, someone drinking and driving should immediately and FOR LIFE have his driving rights revoked. There is simply no excuse for such a lame and irresponsible behaviour.
How does it go in the States?
Drinking and driving is the fastest way to lose your license in the state, bars you from easy entry across the Canadian border, etc.
|
Northern Ireland25029 Posts
I'm not a tee-totalling nerd, in fact I'm for most drug legalization
It's just the whole "it's culture" argument that is total bs, if humanity had that view women wouldn't vote today or any number of progressive developments
Politicians are quite frequently in the pocket of drinks companies anyway, and if they aren't they will not wish to do anything deeply unpopular. Because apparently everybody is a 'sensible' drinker right!?
|
Whats wrong with being an insensible drinker?
Binge drinking is fun, random, and wild. Has hangover taught these people nothing?
Going at a bottle of booze like a crackhead in a free crack giveaway does not equal murder/drunk driving or whatever else.
I mean i enjoy beating myself into a drunken stupor just to ..grasp.. at the fringes of peace. This world is a fucked up place. Maybe its abnormal or unhealthy but i mean really, who wants to deal with that 24/7.
|
alcohol doesn't kill people. People kill people
|
On June 17 2011 16:08 Halcyondaze wrote:
alcohol doesn't kill people. People kill people
Unfortunately, people under the influence of one or more detrimental substances are more likely to kill people than are people free from the influence of said substances.
|
It's incredible to me how easy it is for people to separate themselves from consequences that they cause in very indirect ways. That ability is most generally the core of people arguing in favor of keeping on drinking. The topic is general to be sure, but the OP's point was to get the reader to think about indirect effects of actions that are easily thought of as "Just good fun". What ended up occurring is exactly what occurs when meat eaters hear about the global benefits of Vegetarianism. They respond by confusing purposeful action against humanity with effects that effect humanity and claim innocence. "I eat meat and it isn't REALLY all that bad because I'm not directly causing immediate harm" is what it comes down to (or they don't think about it at all...). See how easy it is to substitute meat and Alcohol?
Because of the general lack of respect for the life of a faceless stranger that capitalistically driven societies teach (Or at least American Society which happens to be Capitalist) people can simply say, "I will do what I want because it is my right and that is all there is to it". People who think such things are the reason the world is going to be a giant shit-storm for our children.
TLDR: You are a puppet of a society that doesn't care about life. Feel bad. Also, I think having a lack of respect for life makes you a lower form of human
Oh gosh this post might cause some hate...
|
Excuse me.
I think OP is a hypocrite hiding his trolling behind a wall of post. NOBODY ALONE IN THE BLOODY WORLD JUDGES 67% of any census ALONE and finds them worthy of some right or not..
Except OP.
Thanks for wasting 9 minutes of my life.
According to Gallup, 67% of Americans drank alcohol in 2008.
To sum this up in more layman terms, the life of each person in America is worth the freedom of 14,759 other people to enjoy and consume alcohol. In other words, the right of 14,759 people to enjoy alcoholic beverages is worth more than the life of one person.
those 13759 waiver-ed their rights the moment they drink and drive.
13,846 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2008.
I do believe it starts with something like this. "You have the right to remain silent..."
@ OP how would you like to get banned because of something I wrote?
|
On June 17 2011 16:45 VictorJones wrote:
People who think such things are the reason the world is going to be a giant shit-storm for our children.
Please, do explain what you mean when you say "a giant shit-storm". The general consensus of scientists and intellectuals is that the future will keep improving at an exponential rate. Even if we do things that affect the future in a negative way, the next generation will always have a more comfortable life than the previous one. (Excluding the small possibility of a WW3 and an alien invasion)
|
Kinda funny how stoners will say "lets ban that horrible stuff called alcohol but WEED IS FINE" Bottom line is that drugs alter your perception and judgment. I say you either ban them both or legalize weed and keep alcohol legal. Banning anything by law doesn't make it go away, look at pretty much every illegal drug out there (I mean weed is almost like alcohol was during prohibition). In the end people want to have their freedom to do what they want within limits and having a drink is perfectly fine. Its all about moderation and some people are suck at decision making (its a bad decision to drink if you know you will do something retarded).
|
I wouldn't even stop drinking if it lead to MY death. I drink a small amount, at rare occasions. I don't see why you people are hopping on the "drinking should be illegal" bandwagon. It should not be taxed any more than a video game is. It's simply a good thing to have when you come home from a hard day's work and need to relax.
Therefore, my answer is no. I would not give up drinking if the enjoyment of many will save the lives a few. It's just that those "few" need to be less dumb about what they do.
|
On June 17 2011 17:00 TurkeyKnight wrote:
I wouldn't even stop drinking if it lead to MY death. I drink a small amount, at rare occasions. I don't see why you people are hopping on the "drinking should be illegal" bandwagon. It should not be taxed any more than a video game is. It's simply a good thing to have when you come home from a hard day's work and need to relax.
Therefore, my answer is no. I would not give up drinking if the enjoyment of many will save the lives a few. It's just that those "few" need to be less dumb about what they do.
The reason alcohol is taxed is to a)reduce damage done to society by reducing the amount of alcohol consumed and b)pay for the damage alcohol-related incidents cause.
|
I don't think you can blame traffic accident on alcohol. Its the people that drive after drinking needs to be blamed. I heard that in Japan, they have a service that will drive your car home if you drink and Japanese people are quite strict about driving after drinking.
People just need to be more civilized, educated in order to stop themselves from driving after drinking.
For normal drink, well I will keep drinking, I don't understand why people want alcohol to get banned. Those "drug" along with many others things that make us human, I don't want to live like a robot until I am 120 years old.
|
On June 17 2011 17:10 Caphe wrote:
I don't think you can blame traffic accident on alcohol. Its the people that drive after drinking needs to be blamed. I heard that in Japan, they have a service that will drive your car home if you drink and Japanese people are quite strict about driving after drinking.
People just need to be more civilized, educated in order to stop themselves from driving after drinking.
For normal drink, well I will keep drinking, I don't understand why people want alcohol to get banned. Those "drug" along with many others things that make us human, I don't want to live like a robot until I am 120 years old.
Unfortunately alcohol tends to have a negative effect on your reasoning and thus the reason they drove drunk was that they were drunk.
|
Would I give up drinking to save lives? Of course, but how the hell do the two relate? OP seems ignorant and starry eyed to me.
|
On June 17 2011 17:24 VonLego wrote:
Would I give up drinking to save lives? Of course, but how the hell do the two relate? OP seems ignorant and starry eyed to me.
Alcohol makes you do stupid things, stupid things kill.
|
Russian Federation114 Posts
You should only consider the deaths directly related to the long term alcohol consumption on the organism, not situational incidents that may or may not happen because of alcohol.
|
/sigh. People who don't understand even the most basic moral theories constantly espousing their random emotional inclinations.
If you don't even consider the various moral theories that can be applied, why ask the question? It's like asking if someone is tall or short, without considering the the differences in heights about ethnicity or gender.
Or even worse, asking the average American their opinion about any scientific fact. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, other than people are woefully anti-introspective
|
On June 17 2011 17:50 Hadraziel wrote:
You should only consider the deaths directly related to the long term alcohol consumption on the organism, not situational incidents that may or may not happen because of alcohol.
Those are the only deaths you should not consider because he is talking about harming other people not yourself
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Since the last 10 pages seem to be recycling the same argument over and over again I am going to close this. PM me if there is discussion in here that is worth keeping the thread open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
