EPTI 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
Yes, I would. (262)
782 total votes
Your vote: Would you give up drinking if it meant less deaths?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qe1oT.jpg)
