Should alcohol be banned?

[Mr. X]

Anything can harm other people. I can stab someone with a pencil or scissors, choke them with rope, or drown them in a lake. Should we ban water while we're at it?

You're advocating for a nanny state. If we banned anything that could possibly bring harm to another person, we wouldn't be doing anything. The real problem isn't alcohol, it's people who abuse it. You're saying that everyone should be punished for the actions of a few idiots. I don't drive when I've been drinking, I shouldn't be punished for those who do.

What is a pencil meant to be used for? To write.
What are scissors meant for? To cut various material such as paper, cardboard, or cloth.
What is rope meant to be used for? To tie things down.
What is a lake used for? Fishing, swimming
What is alcohol used for? To get drunk.

I'm not saying to ban everything that could pose a threat. I'm saying ban things that's only purpose is a negative.

Also, alcohol is poison. How is making a poison illegal going to be punishing everyone? Logic dictates that the less poison a person ingests, that the more healthy they will be. And it's good that you don't drive drunk, but the risk that those that do create is enough to justify 'punishing' everyone as you say.

You can take my alcohol from my cold, dead hands, because that's the only way you're going to stop me from having it.

Drink enough and thats what will happen to you.

If a law conflicts with my moral values, I will break that law. If a law interferes with my personal freedoms without a reasonable justification, I will break that law. I'm not going to be an unquestioning slave to a system that has lost its purpose.

Morals should be used to create laws, not as a justification to break them. You know, the first group that comes to mind when I think about people using morals as a excuse to break the laws? Islamic terrorists. And all those that commit 'honor' killings.

I'm not saying to be a unquestioning slave to a broken system. I'm saying that you should work to CHANGE THE SYSTEM so it is NO LONGER BROKEN. 'It's broke, and I'm not going to try fixing it' is part of the reason why this system is so screwed up. People no longer care, and they always think that they don't need to try solving issues because their are other people to do that for them.

Still, in all fairness, alcohol needs to get the type of labels that cigs now have. You know, the ones that show what REALLY happens if you become addicted to it.

 

[Chikara]

It sounds to me, Mr. X, that you have either:

1) Had a bad experience with alcohol, whether it was you or someone you know or are related to or,
2) Have never had any.

Cause it's to the point of you attacking the people who do enjoy it.

 

[Mr. X]

I've nothing against those that can follow the laws pertaining to its use. If you can adhere the the laws pertaining its use and cause no harm at all, I'm fine with that.

But as I said earlier. The risks that those who can't use this product safely create are great enough to justify banning it for everyone.

 

[Chikara]

Then you've never been out in society, I've mentioned society multiple times now.

People who are 21+ also break the law. I see your point, but it's not just minors that do it.

 

[Mr. X]

Me never being out in society is the reason why I attempt to adhere to the laws of this country?

No. The reason I adhere to the laws of this country is because I live here and as long as I do I will follow its laws, even if I don't agree with some of them. If its a law I don't agree with, I'll still follow it but will try to get it changed.

 

[Oryx]

You're implying that no one can try to change a law as long as they break it. Your assessment of the various uses of pencils, lakes, etc. as opposed to alcohol is flawed as well - you're operating under the assumption that alcohol is meant to be abused. That's not at all what it's meant for, and 'getting drunk' is not a negative trait anyway. Banning alcohol is similar to banning fatty foods. People enjoy them, but they're not nutritious, not good in any way except for taste, cost the government money if a person on welfare for example becomes obese off of them, and can often tempt people as badly as alcohol can. There's also the matter that adults who are overweight due to fatty foods tend to feed their children fatty foods as well, therefore giving them long-term health problems. Based on this, fatty food has no positives except good taste, with many negatives. Should it be banned as well?

We already have drunk driving laws and, while maybe the punishment for driving drunk should be more severe (not sure what it is now), that doesn't mean all alcohol ever should be banned.

 

[Ayselipera]

No, seems kind of stupid to me. Just because some people can't handle it doesn't mean everyone else has to suffer because of them. For me I see it as any other problem. I think everything has its own base level. You can do anything to a certain extent and it's fine. If you do something so much that it is impacting your life in some drastic negative way and you actually care that that is happening then change your ways. Not saying it will be easy, but any habit can be changed whether that means moderation or dropping it altogether.

I think sometimes the problem stems from how people are brought up. In my family alcohol has always been around. One side is really Italian and always has wine and the other side is really Irish and always has beer, lol. To me it's just normal and custom to have some kind of alcohol at a party or just at the table. If I really want some I'll have some, but just because it's in front of my face doesn't mean I have to have it. Which is something I always notice with a lot of my friends where their parents never have alcohol in the house or never drink around them. It's like a huge special moment when there is some and so they go crazy every time they get the opportunity. Of course nothing wrong with that either. If you want to enjoy it go ahead, it's just often viewed by people around me as something you have to use to the full extent every time you get the chance to have some rather than something you have casually some days and to the full extent on others. It's really the attitude that some people carry about it that has to be addressed rather than an all out ban.

 

[Mr. X]

You're implying that no one can try to change a law as long as they break it.

No. I'm saying that instead of breaking a law, try to change it instead.

Your assessment of the various uses of pencils, lakes, etc. as opposed to alcohol is flawed as well - you're operating under the assumption that alcohol is meant to be abused.

Not flawed as you mean it since I was giving the main uses. Drunk is drunk, no matter how little. But if you want to say that the main use of a pencil is to stab people to death, fine with me. I'd recommend mental help if thats the case though.

I'm not saying it's ment to be abused. Just that it is easy to abuse, and that the effects of its abuse are great enough to justify it being banned.

That's not at all what it's meant for, and 'getting drunk' is not a negative trait anyway.

I'd argue against that, but I'll agree but say that the effects of being drunk are negatives.

[quote[
Banning alcohol is similar to banning fatty foods. People enjoy them, but they're not nutritious, not good in any way except for taste, cost the government money if a person on welfare for example becomes obese off of them, and can often tempt people as badly as alcohol can. There's also the matter that adults who are overweight due to fatty foods tend to feed their children fatty foods as well, therefore giving them long-term health problems. Based on this, fatty food has no positives except good taste, with many negatives. Should it be banned as well?
[/quote]

1) Fatty foods only harm the person that consumes them. Alcohol can and has harmed people other then the user.

2) Your body actually needs a certian amount of fats to function. Guess what? Your body doesn't need alcohol. At all. While a small amount of fats are needed, a small amount of alcohol is still poison.

 

[Oryx]

No. I'm saying that instead of breaking a law, try to change it instead.


Not flawed as you mean it since I was giving the main uses. Drunk is drunk, no matter how little. But if you want to say that the main use of a pencil is to stab people to death, fine with me. I'd recommend mental help if thats the case though.

I'm not saying it's ment to be abused. Just that it is easy to abuse, and that the effects of its abuse are great enough to justify it being banned.

But by that logic, it's JUST as easy to abuse water, or pencils, or anything else. In fact, even easier - you get access to these things at young ages, and no one would question someone having a pencil or being around a lake. Also, please don't presume to tell me what I mean by 'flawed'. I mean that the analogy is flawed, not your assessment of their uses. What you were implying was that the main use of alcohol is to be abused in the ways that twocows mentioned abuse of household objects, which is far from the case.

I'd argue against that, but I'll agree but say that the effects of being drunk are negatives.

Not necessarily. This is entirely subjective and it's illogical to use this argument to force banning of alcohol on everybody. I disagree that the effects of being drunk are uniformly negative. The effects of being so far gone that you're puking and black out I would say are negative myself, but other people choose to do it so I wouldn't say that it's negative for everyone.

1) Fatty foods only harm the person that consumes them. Alcohol can and has harmed people other then the user.

2) Your body actually needs a certian amount of fats to function. Guess what? Your body doesn't need alcohol. At all. While a small amount of fats are needed, a small amount of alcohol is still poison.

I mentioned how being around people who eat unhealthy makes you eat unhealthy as well, especially children who eat what their parents give them, and the parents choose to give them fast food instead of healthy alternatives. In addition, wine in small amounts is good for you as well, so that argument falls flat in the face of fatty foods. Not all alcohol is good for you, but not all fats are good for you as well.

Edit: Seems all alcohol is good for you in moderation, which makes your case even worse:

It's been well documented that moderate amounts of alcohol can raise your good cholesterol (HDL-cholesterol) and thin your blood. This is thought to be one of the primary cardiovascular benefits from wine (red and white), as well as hard liquor and beer.

Wine is still the MOST healthy because there are other good properties in it besides the alcohol, but small amounts of alcohol is healthy.

 

[Mr. X]

Alochol is healthy in moderation then?

Would you let your child drink a shot a day of hard liquor, a bottle of beer, or a glass of wine?

They all have small amounts of alochol which is healthy, and with it being in moderation their will be no risk to the child... right? And because its just one, their is no chance of addiction... right?

 

[Oryx]

Sure, once they reach the age where I feel they're mature enough to handle taking just one if they wanted it. Which would likely be around the age of 8-10. I wouldn't force it on them because my mother never even forced multivitamins and the like, but I wouldn't be averse to teaching a child to appreciate something because of the taste and health benefits, and not just to get smashed. My boyfriend was raised to appreciate good whiskey, so he'll have that with a meal, not to get drunk but because he enjoys the taste. Raising a child in a house that doesn't make alcohol a huge issue makes a child that knows how to appreciate the good sides of alcohol while maturely indulging in it.

Also it's not illegal for a parent to give their child alcohol.

 

[The Noob Hacker]

Personally, I don't think that any substance, alcohol or drugs, should be illegal. While I don't agree with people who abuse drugs or alcohol, there is no reason for anybody to tell them they can't. It's all well and good to tell them they shouldn't, but you have no right to forbid them from it. In my mind, if people want to harm themselves, let them. So long as they don't cause harm to anyone besides themselves, I could care less. If it ever comes to a point where harm comes to another because of a user's own stupidity, then there is a problem, but we shouldn't be blaming the substance for it. For example, if one man kills another in a drunken rage, we shouldn't blame the alcohol, we should blame the drunkard. Even if the alcohol put them in a point where they didn't know what they were doing, they still made the choice to use the alcohol that put them in their predicament. They knew what they were getting into and were irresponsible, because of that, someone was harmed other than the original user. That's no reason to ban alcohol, just punish the abuser. If we do that, than responsible still get to enjoy what they like, and the stupid people still get punished.

 

[Yoshikko]

Alochol is healthy in moderation then?

Would you let your child drink a shot a day of hard liquor, a bottle of beer, or a glass of wine?

They all have small amounts of alochol which is healthy, and with it being in moderation their will be no risk to the child... right? And because its just one, their is no chance of addiction... right?

There's a pretty big difference between a shot of hard liquor and a sip of a glass of wine there lol. Besides the fact that small amounts of it are healthy, it's also just a way of teaching your child how to deal with alcohol and to get to know it by experience. My mom never forbad smoking or drinking, she told me all the different aspects and sides to it and teached me how to deal with those things in a mature way. Giving that responsibility to your child just teaches them that alcohol is not only bad bad bad but that it has good sides too if you just know how to handle them.

Besides, I think it's common sense that forbidding things only has the opposite effect, which is just that what you're trying to prevent.

 

[Archer]

Alochol is healthy in moderation then?

Would you let your child drink a shot a day of hard liquor, a bottle of beer, or a glass of wine?

They all have small amounts of alochol which is healthy, and with it being in moderation their will be no risk to the child... right? And because its just one, their is no chance of addiction... right?

A shot, beer or glass of wine is not "in moderation" for a child. It IS however, moderation for an adult (I'm talking physically here, not mentally).

You have to consume a reasonable amount of alcohol on a regular basis for any sort of addiction. Just like a cigarette every few months (because they're far more addictive) isn't going to trigger an addiction.

People with violent/dangerous behavioural issues and addictive tendencies, more often than not, carry those traits inherently. Alcohol reduces inhibition more than anything else. With exception of certain people with certain alcoholic drinks, such as rum (read: not the alcohol itself) who react poorly, the drink is not MAKING them do things, merely ALLOWING it.

In terms of the "alcohol's only purpose to it get drunk", that's exaggerated and inaccurate. It is often used as a sleep aid, relaxation tool, etc. It's only when consumed in excess does one become tipsy.
That "one bad purpose" idea pertains far more closely to guns. Outlawing them is fair.

The vast majority of us consume it responsibly enough, both in public or privately. There's no need to outlaw it for the select few.

 

[Saryka]

Alochol is healthy in moderation then?

Would you let your child drink a shot a day of hard liquor, a bottle of beer, or a glass of wine?

They all have small amounts of alochol which is healthy, and with it being in moderation their will be no risk to the child... right? And because its just one, their is no chance of addiction... right?

Okay, a child's alcohol tolerance is vastly different from that of an adult. Of course you're not going to give them a shot or a full bottle of beer. But my parents used to let me have very small glasses of wine when I was younger and last time I checked I don't think I'm an alcoholic.

And I don't think that drinking in moderation is suddenly going to get you addicted. They're not cigarettes, dude.

I actually think exposure to alcohol at a young age is a good thing. My parents have a giant liquor cabinet at home (but we hardly drink any of it, haha), and I tend to ignore it, honestly. Alcohol's not a big deal for me because my parents don't make it a big deal or some massive taboo. They never really forbade me to drink, but they did teach me about what happens when you drink too much, to be careful, and so on. So sure, I might go out and get drunk with friends once in a blue moon because it's fun. But most of the time when I drink, it's wine with dinner, or I'll have a beer on the weekend.

 

[Abnegation]

Oh yes, because banning alcohol certainly wouldn't cause any uprising! No riots, no response related deaths, nothing like that! Not to mention that the worldwide multi-billion dollar (for lack of common currency) industry would certainly not be missed by the economy and certainly not dig the planet into a further depression!

The above paragraph is complete sarcasm. The banning of alcohol is a ridiculous sentiment. If people think it's an aid to killings, then ban kitchen knives and rope. If people think it's addictive, then create a white box for every person on the planet to live in forever, because everything is addictive, welcome to the human mind. Under age drinking is such a problem? Well about 30% of Christians who have not undertaken communion still go and receive it, which is a sin and condemns you to hell, that's a little more serious than a few hangovers, simply an example to appeal to the several billion Christians out there. Furthermore on underage drinking, you may as well ban cars, kids drive too young and without their full license, and have accidents in which kills people. According to the World Health Organization, drowning is the 3rd leading cause of unintentional injury and death worldwide. So hey, we should go and ban water too!

The logic seen behind this by some posts is far beyond rational in any respect. Alcohol is something that can be used or abused by people, much like anything else which they're physically able to pick up in their hands.

 

[twocows]

What is a pencil meant to be used for? To write.
What are scissors meant for? To cut various material such as paper, cardboard, or cloth.
What is rope meant to be used for? To tie things down.
What is a lake used for? Fishing, swimming
What is alcohol used for? To get drunk.

I'm not saying to ban everything that could pose a threat. I'm saying ban things that's only purpose is a negative.

Getting drunk in and of itself is not harmful to others. If I get drunk in my own house, what business is it of yours?

Also, alcohol is poison.

That depends on what your definition of poison is. It doesn't significantly shorten your life unless you abuse it, so I don't see a problem.

How is making a poison illegal going to be punishing everyone?

Because I ENJOY it. What will you say when the state takes away your gaming privileges because they have the potential to cause a few idiots to do dumb stuff? Are you going to sit back and say "well, they poison peoples' minds and cause them to be unproductive, I fully support this action?" Who cares about that stuff? The fact is, people like myself enjoy drinking, and you're arguing to get rid of something we enjoy doing because you don't like it, so you don't consider it valuable. My enjoyment is an end in itself; you're taking away my freedom to pursue my own happiness because it doesn't affect you.

Logic dictates that the less poison a person ingests, that the more healthy they will be.

Again, you can define poison to be whatever you want, but a few drinks every now and then will have no impact on someone's lifespan. Even if it did, who cares? It's my body and I should be free to treat it how I want. Are you going to outlaw overeating next?
And it's good that you don't drive drunk, but the risk that those that do create is enough to justify 'punishing' everyone as you say.[/quote]
ANYTHING has the potential to be misused. By your logic, we would ban everything and we'd be relegated to being a bunch of brains in pickle jars because that's the only way people aren't going to cause harm. And even then, I guarantee someone would try to fall over onto someone else to knock them over.

Point is, I'm an adult. I have and deserve to have the freedom to "poison" my body how I want because I'm responsible enough to know my limits and to not abuse the stuff. Those who prove themselves not up to that responsibility should be handled by law enforcement; not my problem.

Drink enough and thats what will happen to you.

Har har har, aren't you clever? Except that's nonsense, because alcohol doesn't have any permanent effect on the human body unless you go way over the top.

Morals should be used to create laws, not as a justification to break them. You know, the first group that comes to mind when I think about people using morals as a excuse to break the laws? Islamic terrorists. And all those that commit 'honor' killings.

That's odd, because the examples that come to mind for me are the American revolutionaries, Robin Hood, the underground railroad, and any group of determined individuals who stood opposed to a power who cared nothing for their freedom. But I'm sure those people don't matter, right?

While I'm at it, the last group of people who obeyed the law without questioning its moral foundation was convicted in a court in Nuremberg.

I'm not saying to be a unquestioning slave to a broken system. I'm saying that you should work to CHANGE THE SYSTEM so it is NO LONGER BROKEN. 'It's broke, and I'm not going to try fixing it' is part of the reason why this system is so screwed up. People no longer care, and they always think that they don't need to try solving issues because their are other people to do that for them.

The system is broke. Arbitrary age limits are silly, as I've said dozens of times in other threads. However, you're "fixing" it in the wrong way: you're saying we should essentially torture youths for violating these arbitrary laws when all they really wanted to do was to enjoy themselves.

Still, in all fairness, alcohol needs to get the type of labels that cigs now have. You know, the ones that show what REALLY happens if you become addicted to it.

Label it how you want. Just stop trying to take it away from me. It's my money, it's my body. I'm a responsible adult, stop trying to treat me like a child.

 

[-ty-]

umm...all I can say is look at the past.

Prohibition hurt the economy and put alot of decent/hard-working people behind bars. Although you cannot tie the start and end to the great depression directly to prohibition's initiation and demise it very well may have been a contributing factor. OH, not to mention the hypocrisy of the rich and powerful who established speak-easies so that they could exclusively bypass the ridiculous amendment. I choose not to drink, but I don't believe I should be able to choose whether someone else can or cannot drink.

 

[femtrooper]

Of course not! Many people love alcohol, and not for the reason to drunk off of it. I HATE alcohol because I don't like the way it tastes. But I know people who love to have a glass of wine with their pasta...so what? My Mom doesn't drink wine to get wasted. Honestly, if you wanna get wasted, that's cool too! Just don't do it in a way where you might hurt others. I don't think alcohol should be banned...it's 2012, not the 30s.

 

[Nutella]

While I'm not a drunk (otherwise I can kiss my future career goodbye), I would really, really protest against the ban of alcohol. Not that it would ever happen- there would always be some sly grog if that were the case. Would create more problems!

The thing is... why do us of-age, responsible drinkers have to suffer the consequences because some immature teenagers decide to beat each other up after sculling a 151? Hell, even adults are irresponsible with alcohol. I drink to enjoy the tastes and the variety of combinations.

I'm very much into the "night life scene", where alcohol is a given. No party I ever went to in the last four years didn't have alcohol. Yes, occasionally I go overboard. Most of the time, my friends don't even want to have fun without getting excessively drunk. That's their own stupidity. Should it be banned though? No.