Banning of alcohol..

[Jon885]

This is being discussed in another forum I go to and I would like to know your opinion of a second prohibition. I don't think it's a realistic idea because the last prohibition was a failure. What are your thoughts on the subject?

[General_Admission]

lol

~~~~~

[Angelyne]

It didn't work the first time, why would it work now?

[Blah]

The first time?

Has alcohol been illegal in usa? :eyepop:
Why would anyone want to take away the joy of alcohol from the people?

[Jon885]

Yes alcohol was banned once in the US in 1916

[PiccoloNamek]

They just didn't use the right punishments, that's all. The punishment needs to be something so horrifying that nobody would dare try break the law.

Seriously though, there's no reason to ban alcohol.

[Idlethought]

The first time?

Has alcohol been illegal in usa? :eyepop:
Why would anyone want to take away the joy of alcohol from the people?

Because alcohol in excess tends to be a destructive force. It breaks up families, destroys friendships as well as reputations, becomes an excuse for those who wake up in the wrong bed, and kills people/

[scan2001]

I think it a dream to have prohibition in this day and age in America.

[General_Admission]

Because alcohol in excess tends to be a destructive force. It breaks up families, destroys friendships as well as reputations, becomes an excuse for those who wake up in the wrong bed, and kills people/

So does my dick, but I don't see a ban on it! :karate:

[Citizen]

Banning alcohol again would be a horrible idea. Bad for the economy, bad for crime rates, and bad for the morale of the American people.

[Kash]

Alcohol has been banned more than once in the USA. Georgia tried to ban alcohol shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War and then Maine did too not long after. To this day there are plenty fo dry towns and counties.

[Osucka]

So does my dick, but I don't see a ban on it! :karate:

wait



10ten10

[General_Admission]

If alcohol was banned people would still drink it, it would just be unregulated & not subject to competition. You would drink what you go, no matter the quality or how bad it might be for you. I sure want my alcohol with a dash of embalming fluid in it. :boggled:

Plus, small amounts of alcohol is good for your heart.

[InsertWapNameHere]

Banning substances is the wrong way to go. Time and time again banning drugs has caused nothing more than over crowded jails and an increase in usage, especially in minors. It's harder for kids to get alcohol than it would be for other things such as pot, so we can see where illegality leads to.

[Artie]

Because alcohol in excess tends to be a destructive force. It breaks up families, destroys friendships as well as reputations, becomes an excuse for those who wake up in the wrong bed, and kills people/

So do things like cars.

Should we ban those too?

[Idlethought]

Ah but in this day and age cars are something of a necessity. And cars really are only a destructive force when the driver is under the influence or when the driver is inexperienced or impatient.

[gyoza]

Ah but in this day and age cars are something of a necessity. And cars really are only a destructive force when the driver is under the influence or when the driver is inexperienced or impatient.

Same thing, alcohol is only destructive when people are addicted to it. I think a complete flat-out ban would be ridiculous...

[Idlethought]

Same thing, alcohol is only destructive when people are addicted to it.

Actually, that's not true. A new user or even an experienced user who's not addicted can cause problems when inebriated.

[General_Admission]

Actually, that's not true. A new user or even an experienced user who's not addicted can cause problems when inebriated.

booo at collective thinking.

[Decade]

Do you know how many rappers would be in fucking heaven if that happened? Hell, even that cuntastic Christina Aguilerra dresses in the 1930's style clothes now.

They'd be advertising speakeasys everywhere, even IF it were illegal

[Mastiker]

Ah but in this day and age cars are something of a necessity. And cars really are only a destructive force when the driver is under the influence or when the driver is inexperienced or impatient.

and alchohol is only a problem if the user is over abundant in its usage, or they're inexperienced in their drinking habits, or if they're impatient to wait until they're of legal age to use it.

banning alchohol is not the solution.

banning who drinks alchohol, that's the solution.

turning 21 shouldn't validate that you're automatically able to drink alchohol. there should be a test for it, much like there is for driving a car.

[Idlethought]

i'm not saying you should ban alcohol lol I'm just saying why it's destructive and why people might want to ban it.

[gyoza]

That's an interesting idea... so one takes tests to determine tolerance/maturity/other attributes and gets a 'license' allowing different degrees of drinking?

[Mastiker]

That's an interesting idea... so one takes tests to determine tolerance/maturity/other attributes and gets a 'license' allowing different degrees of drinking?

pretty much. and also any sort of behavioral/mentality that would suggest that alchohol would be a bad idea for you. i mean, that way all the alchohol related problems would be lesser in value. people would try to behave just to drink. and i think it would work too. it'd be better than a ban, because a ban just removes the issue. a "license" would not remove the issue, but just move it over.

[Mastiker]

It should be banned because it's a drug...

so isn't prozac, so isn't viagra, so isn't asprin.

lots of today's "cures" are simply happy pills.

when people say drug they automatically group it in with pot, crack, meth, and everything.

but like prozac, alchohol, and pot, everything must be taken in moderation. drugs are only dangerous if you take them more than you're supposed to, and if they're made dangerously wrong. in some cases (such as highly addictive drugs such as meth and heroin) taking them is a bad thing. but a lot of drugs help.

i'm not saying that drugs are a great thing. i've never taken drugs, including aspirin. it's just that you can't automatically assume something's bad about something just because of it's label.

alchohol is not bad because it's a drug. it's bad because the people who drink it abuse it. sort of like that motto, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". and it's true. if you don't want drugs, don't take them. if you want other people to not take them, do what you want, but people are going to make up their own mind.

[General_Admission]

Someone could make a buck by creating a study guide for the test. LOL!

I still say boo to collective thinking.

[gyoza]

Someone could make a buck by creating a study guide for the test. LOL!

I still say boo to collective thinking.

Haha, since the test would largely be based on tolerance, I'm not sure how you could cram for it. :)

[Citizen]

It should be banned because it's a drug...

Actually, it's not. Unless you want to get technical as hell, in which case we might as well add caffeine to the chopping block as well. Besides, alcohol doesn't create a physical addiction.

[toasterninja]

If alcohol was banned I wouldn't have had the joys of throwing up green last night :D

[MSquared]

Speaking of a that-shouldn't-be-right alcohol crackdown....

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8034788/detail.html

[solow]

It should be banned because it's a drug...

well thank god you're not in charge!

no drug is bad, the person that can't handle it is bad. the one moron out of a hundred always makes responsible drug users look bad. which is why i agree with the idea that you should have to have a liscence in order to use different types of drugs. yeah, i drink, i smoke, and never once have i put anyone in harms way because of it. what i do on my own time is my business and nobody has a right to govern what i put into my body.

reminds me of a bill hicks quote that goes something like "it's always the same story. some guy took acid, thought he could fly, jumped out of a window. good, screw him! if he thought he could fly why didnt he take off from the ground first? do you see birds lining up to catch elevators to fly south? i say good, we lost a moron!"

it's idiots like that that ruin it for the rest of us. i personally have absolutely no sympathy for anyone that can't handle their drug use, alcohol or otherwise. when i get totally drunk, you don't see me beating my wife, crashing my car, killing innocent people, trying to beat people up!! no, i have a good time and the most bother i put on anyone is being belligerent to my friends!!! i can handle mine just fine, why can't they? and yes, i've tried some of the harder drugs as well, including the supposed "oh so addictive cocaine" and i'm not addicted, in fact i'll never do it again just because i know how to exercise restraint. my life wasn't ruined, i didn't lose my job, my car, my house, my family. i never hurt anyone else, and i'm very much glad for all of the drugs i've taken because it's opened my mind on a million levels that i never thought possible before my drug experimenting started. ignorance may be bliss, but i sure as hell am glad that i'm not.

bah, it drives me insane that people think they have a right to go about banning something or saying it's wrong or immoral just because THEY don't like it. hell, i don't like a LOT of things, but you don't see me running my mouth off and pushing everyone around whining to get rid of it just because I don't like it!! lord, i could rattle off a list of a million things i despise, but i have enough courtesy to care less about what you do in your own time, provided you don't bother me with it. why can't i be treated the same way?

/end rant :)

[whispering]

They cant ban something that can easily be made at home.

[MNJetter]

I've never tried drugs or cigarettes, and am not a big fan of alchohol (especially drinking it to the point of inebriation), but I agree with solow. Rather than banning alchohol, we should un-ban all drugs. I have two reasons.

1) Legalizing things like that would allow us to regulate it. Authorities have been really worried lately because marijuana is becoming more destructive and steadily more addictive. Well, if it were legalized, they could put restrictions on the amount of addictive chemical that marijuana can contain per volume or something. They could make people take a class about responsible use before being allowed to take harder drugs.

2) I firmly believe that the government has no right to protect us from ourselves. Protect us from other people, yes. That's why we have driving laws and gun regulations. But protecting us from our own stupidity is beyond the government's responsibility, and that money would be better spent on education or something.

[Bob]

1)Well, if it were legalized, they could put restrictions on the amount of addictive chemical that marijuana can contain per volume or something

That makes no sense. To do that the government would have to be the sole distributor, which is impossible

2) I firmly believe that the government has no right to protect us from ourselves.

But you believe in drug regulation? Right...

[Mastiker]

you kidding me? that's what i've been on about for years. legalizing drugs is the perfect solution; for one thing, mostly all of my druggie friends are druggie's because they're rebelling. would it be cooler for them to do drugs if they were allowed to? no.

second, remember when the prohibition was in effect? people would make their own booze. the booze would have all sorts of chemicals, anything they could find that would make them drunk. and it would be made in unsanitary conditions. when the government allowed alchohol to be legal again, people stopped making it at home and started to become safer. that's nearly the exact situation that happens today. drug dealers put in different drugs to make it more intense for the buyer, so that the buyer comes back. if the government legalized marijuana, then someone (with a prescription) could go to the pharmacy and buy marijuana that was clean. it'd be safer for the body.

the government wouldn't be the "sole distributor". are they the "sole distributor" of alchohol or tobacco? no, there's companies for that.


bob, MNJetter has the right idea. the government has no right to protect us from ourselves, but it does have the right to protect us from others. if others would do harm to us via unregulated drug usage, then the government should step in and stop it, and if making drugs legal is the best solution, then so be it.

[Bob]

that's nearly the exact situation that happens today. drug dealers put in different drugs to make it more intense for the buyer, so that the buyer comes back

No, they don't. Drug dealers cut it with baking soda and shit that looks like the drug they're selling so they can make more money. If they wanted to get people addicted all they would have to do is keep it pure

are they the "sole distributor" of alchohol or tobacco? no, there's companies for that.

Yeah, companies sell tobacco without any chemicals in it. Anyways, people would still grow it at home and do the same thing they do now because it would be cheaper.

if others would do harm to us via unregulated drug usage

When was the last time someone forced you to do drugs?

[solow]

agreed with parts of what mnjetter, mastiker, bob have said..

another thing, i would be all for marijuana being 100% grown and sold by the government. can you imagine how much money they would make? we could pay off the goddamned debt in a few years!!! (well, not really, but hey)

i'm also agreed on the whole 'it would be less abused if legal' idea. in my opinion, most of the jackasses that cause the trouble are the ones doing it to rebel, to be "cool," whatever...its kind of like alcohol in the US, every single kid growing up (well, most kids) cannot WAIT to be 21 so they can drink themselves retarded for, what, a year, two, their entire 20's? man, a lot of people take it way overboard, because of the urge to get out what theyve been denied for so long. where as in germany, you can drink when you're 5 if you want to, so it's no big deal to them...

also, legalize drugs, put the murdering drug lords around the world out of business. i dont know how factual this is, but i do believe a lot of terrorism is funded by drug money. if we legalize it we put them out of a job. another thing is, crime in america would DEFINATELY drop, there would be no more problems with people killing and being killed because of drugs. no more drug dealers.

and im not saying it should just be BAM legal and let everyone go hog wild on it. i'm all in favor of regulation, i just think this place would be a lot better if most drugs were legal....and my main fight is for the legalization of marijuana, which, if done, would give the government untold millions (billions??) to fight the REAL drugs...i mean, i'm all for being able to do whatever you want, but hey, i dont think anybody needs crack, a needle in the arm..etc... :)

and now that ive killed the original idea of this thread, ill try to revert it quick..

if alcohol is banned, im moving to mexico!!!!! seriously..it will never happen again. and it was a terrible idea back then. how many people died or went blind from bad moonshine? making alcohol is not *that* easy, you do need to know what you're doing, and i,for one, having no idea, would probably kill myself trying to make it in my house if it was made illegal, lol...

the only way i could see it made illegal is in the very far future if the world ends up being something like THX 1138 or Brave New World or something incredibly horrid like that where the government really does end up taking supreme control over us....and if things (namely in the US) keep going the way they are, it really doesnt seem that impossible....and now the urge to flee is taking hold of me, so i shall end this, crack a beer, and thank whatever diety is around that i can still do it legally... XD

[MeneerDijk]

Allthough i think alcohol can be pretty bad stuff, banning isn't a solution. There will always be drinkers, banning it will only make it harder to spot a problem drinker. I'd think education would help a lot more. A change of attitude towards drinking of alcohol, or rather the excessive drinking of alcohol is much needed.

Take the place i grew up for example. Getting so drunk you can't take responsability for your own actions anymore isn't seen as very bad here. You're more likely to be considered a hero if you drank so much you've puked in the middle of the streets. Going out in the weekend and getting totally wasted is seen as a form of relaxation. Sometimes the parents know full well what their kids did, but they don't do much about it, except for a slap on the wrist.

Allthough i dont drink anymore, i still recognise that i had fun when i still did. Going out with mates after work, and drinking a couple of beers and have the conversation go a littlebit easier thanks to the white collared gold. Having people realise that just drinking a couple of beers can be better than drinking a whole crate would be a major improvement.

[PopCulturePooka]

Fuck.

Ban Alcohol?

What the fuck? I'd rather ban your face.

Without your face I still had a great time last night. Without alcohol a whole bunch of fun hijinks would have been missed.

[lady suzie]

it's weird. alcohol is technically a hard drug and is legal and pot is a soft drug and illegal in the states(it's "allowed" where i'm from). things are screwed up.

[Kash]

I think there's a point that's being missed as well. Currently with today's drug regulation and in the past with prohibition, all the money went to gangsters. Have you bought some weed lately? There's a chance that some of the bucks went to an organized crime syndicate. Just like back in the boot legging days.

Soloution? Make it legal, tax it and regulate it's distrobution. Someone suggested there be a test for buying drugs. This is an excellent idea. Before having your license validated for alcohol, or pot or cocaine, or viagra or whatever, one would have to study concerning the use and abuse and effects of consuming such drugs. Then later, the taxes from the sales of these drugs could be used for education and even clinics. This way it would be a "sin tax" and the rest of society wouldn't be burdened with paying for rehibilitating those that couldn't handle their drugs.

Imagine how easy it would be to catch incepient addicts with an ID card and sales history. "I"m sorry Mr. Smith, but inorder to get any more cocaine, you're going to have to buy it at the clinic. You have an appointment with a friendly counselor at 5pm today."

Imagine actually having a system that makes an attempt at keeping drugs out of the hands of kids. Today, if one want to buy drugs, a school or school aged kid is the best source. A system like this would also keep those with a history of driving drunk from buying alcohol. What happens today? I could have 5 arrests on my license for drunk driving and I could very legally buy enough alcohol to drownd a horse.

While I don't see the government as actually haveing to do the selling, they aught to regulate the licenses of consumers and retailers and wholesalers. The government would be reeping massive amounts of taxes that they're currently ignoring now. The data base, communications and treatment centers would be easily funded with plenty to spare.

And by the by, the very first law ever drafted by the brand spanking new US Government was to tax alcohol.

[Bob]

I think there's a point that's being missed as well. Currently with today's drug regulation and in the past with prohibition, all the money went to gangsters. Have you bought some weed lately? There's a chance that some of the bucks went to an organized crime syndicate. Just like back in the boot legging days.

Soloution? Make it legal, tax it and regulate it's distrobution. Someone suggested there be a test for buying drugs. This is an excellent idea. Before having your license validated for alcohol, or pot or cocaine, or viagra or whatever, one would have to study concerning the use and abuse and effects of consuming such drugs. Then later, the taxes from the sales of these drugs could be used for education and even clinics. This way it would be a "sin tax" and the rest of society wouldn't be burdened with paying for rehibilitating those that couldn't handle their drugs.

Imagine how easy it would be to catch incepient addicts with an ID card and sales history. "I"m sorry Mr. Smith, but inorder to get any more cocaine, you're going to have to buy it at the clinic. You have an appointment with a friendly counselor at 5pm today."

Imagine actually having a system that makes an attempt at keeping drugs out of the hands of kids. Today, if one want to buy drugs, a school or school aged kid is the best source. A system like this would also keep those with a history of driving drunk from buying alcohol. What happens today? I could have 5 arrests on my license for drunk driving and I could very legally buy enough alcohol to drownd a horse.

While I don't see the government as actually haveing to do the selling, they aught to regulate the licenses of consumers and retailers and wholesalers. The government would be reeping massive amounts of taxes that they're currently ignoring now. The data base, communications and treatment centers would be easily funded with plenty to spare.

And by the by, the very first law ever drafted by the brand spanking new US Government was to tax alcohol.

As I said before, you can't regulate something that can easily be grown

[ReverendC]

I think banning alcohol is fairly unlikely. It has medicinal value, and is a big part of the American cultural landscape. This isn't an issue that will be settled with rational debate. For things like this it boils down to which side screams the loudest, which is why alcohol is legal and pot isn't.

Sure, pot has medicinal value, but potheads don't scream. Alcoholics on the other hand...

This debate always brings to my mind a little experiment done with mice. Lab mice were bred for alcohol preference and avoidance. Within 15 generations, the alcohol avoiding mice stopped procreating, in every single experiment done. The alcohol preferring mice, on the other hand, kept on debauching along.

I don't know that alcohol is evolutionarily required for the procreation of a species but it sure seems to folks along. Banning alcohol seems about as likely as banning sex. While the fundamentalists in power would no doubt love that idea as a means of eliminating STDs, I can see no quicker means to a return to Bacchanalian rites with the power elite served up as the sacrifices.

Just imagine if you would, a broken, bleeding Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the bottom of a dogpile of crazed, gore spattered and half-naked women feasting on chunks of his flesh while surrounded by a mixed group of revelers partaking in a celebratory orgy. While an attractive image to some, I think most would realize that this might not be the direction we want to take civilization. People do weird things when deprived of their alcohol.

[Radiance]

I'm sure the modern day mob would love to see it banned. :D While we're at it, lets ban everything anyone has ever used for an excuse for their own personal failures and lack of control. I fully agree too much of anything is a destructive force. However, banning common items which have an entire industry tied into it is an absurd idea. Those few (in comparison to how many that don't have an issue with it) that have abuse issues with controlled substances need to take a personal look at themselves and their lives.

[Mastiker]

As I said before, you can't regulate something that can easily be grown

Alchohol can be easily grown. Ever hear of moonshine? However, if the government can step in and make it not only safer but more quality, then shouldn't they? And you mentioned that they put baking powder, true. But a lot of dealers (sometimes unintentionally) lace their weed with PCP or some other drug like that. Some of the jackass dealers will try to sell you orgeno, but for the most part, dealers are trying to get you addicted.

I think banning alcohol is fairly unlikely. It has medicinal value, and is a big part of the American cultural landscape.

The last time I checked, liver damage wasn't considered "medicinal value"

Soloution? Make it legal, tax it and regulate it's distrobution. Someone suggested there be a test for buying drugs. This is an excellent idea. Before having your license validated for alcohol, or pot or cocaine, or viagra or whatever, one would have to study concerning the use and abuse and effects of consuming such drugs. Then later, the taxes from the sales of these drugs could be used for education and even clinics. This way it would be a "sin tax" and the rest of society wouldn't be burdened with paying for rehibilitating those that couldn't handle their drugs.

Imagine how easy it would be to catch incepient addicts with an ID card and sales history. "I"m sorry Mr. Smith, but inorder to get any more cocaine, you're going to have to buy it at the clinic. You have an appointment with a friendly counselor at 5pm today."

That's exactly what I've been going on about!

[Radiance]

The last time I checked, liver damage wasn't considered "medicinal value"

Feel free to read up on various medical studys which state a glass of wine semi-regularly can reduce levels of harmful cholesterol and protect from prostate cancer among other things. No one said alcohol abuse had medical value, but in moderation many different things can be good for you.

Link: Positive Effects of Wine. (http://www.hkam.org.hk/temp/wine_health.html)

[K2Grey]

if you currently do not drink, or do not enjoy drinking, it is not advisable that you start -- alcohol should not be used as a medication, as there are other bad effects of alcohol to consider in particular the hazards of working machinery and driving automobiles under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, there are many other proven ways of reducing the risk of heart disease.

I don't think there's going to be any real decrease in overall health if alcohol stops being consumed. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true. Of course, a ban on alcohol does not necessarily mean that alcohol will not be consumed and I'm pretty sure I'd rather drink alcohol made under safety regulations than some brew a random person made in their bathtub.

There are plenty of good reasons or justifications for paternalism on the part of the government. For example, it would be nice if everyone could drive responsibly but there are speed limits for a reason. Not that people necessarily follow them, but I'm sure the existence of speed limits saves lives. And while organized crime is based in large part on selling drugs, I don't really want to see heroin in the pharmacy section of the supermarket.

But, while there's no clearly defined line where paternalism becomes too invasive, I'm reasonably confident that banning alcohol is over the line.

[MNJetter]

This debate always brings to my mind a little experiment done with mice. Lab mice were bred for alcohol preference and avoidance. Within 15 generations, the alcohol avoiding mice stopped procreating, in every single experiment done. The alcohol preferring mice, on the other hand, kept on debauching along.

I would wonder about the results of that experiment. If mice that don't drink alchohol stop procreating, how has the species survived in the wild for all these centuries? Secret mouse-sized breweries in forest clearings? :watson:

There are plenty of good reasons or justifications for paternalism on the part of the government. For example, it would be nice if everyone could drive responsibly but there are speed limits for a reason. Not that people necessarily follow them, but I'm sure the existence of speed limits saves lives.

Yeah, but the government owns the roads. They can tell people what to do with them. The government doesn't own people, and it doesn't own the alchohol. I think that gives them less of a claim to tell us what to do with ourselves.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Personally, cause I don't drink it, I don't care if it is banned.

[Mastiker]

Feel free to read up on various medical studys which state a glass of wine semi-regularly can reduce levels of harmful cholesterol and protect from prostate cancer among other things. No one said alcohol abuse had medical value, but in moderation many different things can be good for you.

Link: Positive Effects of Wine. (http://www.hkam.org.hk/temp/wine_health.html)

oh i was referring to beer ^.^ yeah, i knew wine had medicinal value, being raised by italian grandparrents who tell me all the time.

[JudoPorkChop]

I would wonder about the results of that experiment. If mice that don't drink alchohol stop procreating, how has the species survived in the wild for all these centuries? Secret mouse-sized breweries in forest clearings? :watson:


Um...No. Alcohol content in fermented fruits, vegetables and other things a mouse might happen to snack upon. Though, Mr. BoSqueekums Juke Joint is a happenin' idea, lemme tellya...

[/invisolurk]

[gyoza]

I would wonder about the results of that experiment. If mice that don't drink alchohol stop procreating, how has the species survived in the wild for all these centuries? Secret mouse-sized breweries in forest clearings? :watson:


Well, they ARE the most intelligent life form on Earth after all... :P

[Kash]

As I said before, you can't regulate something that can easily be grown

First off, like hell you can't. Pot today is illegal (here anyway) and it's distribution is quite regulated. Just because many people do grow it as a cash crop doesn't convince me that it's "uncontrolled". Anyway, go ahead and smoke your ditch weed whilst the marketing firm of Dolittle, Dilly, Dally and Stall make a nation wide campaign for "Blueberry Nugs". There's always been an allowance for homebrewers. Hell, I have dozens of gallons of home made mead just feet behind me. I think the new way of looking at things would make homebrewed recreational drugs legal, but not uncontrolled. For instance if a child were to consume weed grown by Mr. Rodgers down the street, the I think that Mr. Rodgers is liable and aught well be punished for distrubiting to a minor. Sameways as if a bar serves up minors. Sameways that tobacco manufactures are liable for lying about their product.

[Trump]

Banning drugs just makes them go underground. They should just be highly regulated and / or taxed.

[Daishikaze]

Hell, I don't like Alcohol, but even I know that Banning it again would be a disaster. Here in Switzerland, if you banned it, it would probably start a civil war, thats how seriously they would take it.

[OliveButtercup]

If alcohol was banned people would still drink it, it would just be unregulated & not subject to competition. You would drink what you go, no matter the quality or how bad it might be for you. I sure want my alcohol with a dash of embalming fluid in it. :boggled:

Plus, small amounts of alcohol is good for your heart.

I think this may only be true for red, red wine :hphone:

[Jay]

Shh. It's true for ALL alcohol. :)

[Kou123]

on a side note i think its rediculous that in the US people get more jail time for having a medical problem(addiction) than they do for violent crimes

[Kash]

on a side note i think its rediculous that in the US people get more jail time for having a medical problem(addiction) than they do for violent crimes

You can be the most depraved alcoholic and not serve any time at all. Drink morning noon and night, noone will even arrest you. It's driving drunk that's the crime. It's beating your wife that's the crime. It's neglecting your kids that's the crime.

And as well those things should be. It's a good thing that here in the US we don't down play spouse abuse or drunk driving as simple addiction.

Noone has ever been convicted of being an addict, to alcohol or otherwise.

[Kou123]

yes people have its called Posession of an Illicit Substance, just because someone is addicited to someting illegal rather than cigarettes, caffeine or alchohol

[Idlethought]

Yea but you can't go to jail for simply being addicted to alcohol cigarettes or caffeine or other legal substances that I don't know of. You go to jail for the consequences.

The most you might get for a simple addiction is recommended rehab

[Kass]

on a side note i think its rediculous that in the US people get more jail time for having a medical problem(addiction) than they do for violent crimes

That is a massive misconception. Most drug possession offenses do not get jail time. They get probation. Jail time really only occurs when the offense involves the sale of drugs, and even then, it usually has to be a multiple repeat offender or someone selling large quantities of the drug. I can count the number of drug possession cases I saw get more than 30 days in jail. It's probably 100 out of 5000-6000 cases.

A fair number of the cases don't involve addiction either. A lot of weekend users get busted for possession, Mr. 9-5 White Collar who uses cocaine on the weekends or for special occasions.

It only seems like more because anytime a repeat offender actually gets jail time, people and themedia make a big deal about it. Poor Joe Blow got busted with a dozen joints on him and he got two years in jail. Of course, what isn't reported is that poor Joe Blow had a dozen joints on him and a couple kilos in the trunk. He also had a drug dealing record longer than my arm, as well as other offenses including theft and assault. Joe decided he didn't want to qo quietly and told the cops to f-off and took a swing at one of them.

Also not reported are all the plea deals that consolidate multiple offenses into one case in exchange for a slightly longer sentence. Multiple charges are pleaded down to one non-violent misdemeanor to give this poor, mistreated individual a second, third and fifteenth chance.

You know why we have a problem with all the junkies on the streets and in the welfare system? Because we don't put them in jail. Instead, we refer these poor addicted souls to social services for counseling and assistance. That way, we can send them money for their kids that they can blow on blow.

Just like cigarrettes or alcohol, at some point, the user has to admit it is their problem and put down the crack pipe. No one can force them to do otherwise. All the counseling and treatment in the world won't help someone who doesn't think or doesn't care that they have a problem.

[Matt W]

Besides, alcohol doesn't create a physical addiction.

Alcohol is clearly physically addicting.

I would wonder about the results of that experiment. If mice that don't drink alchohol stop procreating, how has the species survived in the wild for all these centuries? Secret mouse-sized breweries in forest clearings?

Haha, very good point, that study is clearly nonsense.

Marijuana should definitely be legalized. Its way less bad for your health than alcohol, and it would create a lot of income for the government. Also, it'd save the government a lot of money because they wont have to jail offenders, which can make a drug user into a actually bad criminal.

[Idlethought]

if you banned alcohol and legalized marijuana all the Liquor stores would turn to Weed stores and people would be dealing beer on the street corner and moonshine and shit like that

[ReverendC]

Haha, very good point, that study is clearly nonsense.



Someone already mentioned this, but certain fruits contain alcohol. Plums come immediately to mind. Fruits also ferment naturally, which means that animals that eat fruit will be exposed to and consume alcohol.

Though you don't know me and have no reason to believe it, I do not cite information willy-nilly. This is just basic undergrad biology. Of course you don't have to take my word on it. You can probably find it in a good text, or ask a professor about it.

Also, I'd like to reiterate that alcohol has medicinal value. Some have cited the wine studies, but there are other studies where subjects were fed high fat diets and a 5% alcohol-water solution. The findings indicated that the alcohol consumers had substantially (50-65%) less arterial plaque than those just eating the high fat diet and drinking plain water. And I might be completely out of touch on this, but don't doctors use it to sterilize the area before they give you a shot?

No one would suggest that a person who overindulges get behind the wheel of a car. But neither is anyone suggesting that people who drink must overindulge. As another poster semi-facetiously put it, all alcohol is good for you. In the right quantities, this is absolutely true. But alcohol, like aspirin, food, sunlight or even water, can be toxic in excess.

This may be more information than you need, but I really have no great love of alcohol. My brother died from an alcohol overdose about three years ago. Still, I don't look at alcohol and immediately say "Alcohol BAD!". I do realize that some people shouldn't drink it. It is a depressant and should in general be avoided by bipolar or depression prone people as well as those with a history of alcoholism in their family. There's a ton of what is to me fascinating information out there and I simply encourage those interested to do a little research before deciding if a thing is 'good' or 'bad'.

[Matt W]

ReverendC:

I am not anti-alcohol, and I aint for prohibition. I know wine can be good for you, and maybe some other alcohol, but clearly alcohol is a poison, and the way most people drink it, except for wine, is bad for their health. In regards to the study, I know fermentation occurs naturally, but I still don't think it has anything to do with whether mice will procreate. Its the natural instinct for all creatures, and Im sure mice often don't have access to fermented fruits, or they procreate without them. WIthout knowing anything specific about the lab study, it just seemed to me that the results could be from other things, and probably aren't externally valid.

[Kass]

Actually, the number of people overall who have alcohol problems are in the minority. If it were the other way around, the world would be unable to function.

Alcohol clearly isn't poison any more than any other medicinal agent. It is all in how you use it. Aspirin can kill you. So can Tylenol. So can water if you drink too much.

Many animals in the wild eat fermented fruit. They eat what they can find, fermented or not.

[ReverendC]

ReverendC:

I am not anti-alcohol, and I aint for prohibition. I know wine can be good for you, and maybe some other alcohol, but clearly alcohol is a poison, and the way most people drink it, except for wine, is bad for their health. In regards to the study, I know fermentation occurs naturally, but I still don't think it has anything to do with whether mice will procreate. Its the natural instinct for all creatures, and Im sure mice often don't have access to fermented fruits, or they procreate without them. WIthout knowing anything specific about the lab study, it just seemed to me that the results could be from other things, and probably aren't externally valid.

As I said, many things are poisonous if taken in excess.

Though in my first post I was being silly, the study does indicate that there is a genetic component to alcohol preference, and that component is conducive to species viability. This isn't a study that was done once and filed away in an obscure science journal. This is something that has been replicated independently numerous times. This study does not indicate that it's impossible for any given individual to procreate without the aid of alcohol. What it suggests is that alcohol preference is an evolutionary advantage and when bred out of certain herbivorous and omnivorous species, is detrimental to those species' survival.

As to being externally valid, real world observations of monkeys show that several family groups will gather around fruit trees, partake of the fermented fruit, get visibly drunk and procreate their brains out, thereby promoting genetic diversity. While I must admit a certain amount of shame at having laughed at the film footage of drunken monkeys and monkeys with visible hangovers, I have nevertheless seen the role that alcohol plays in non-human propagation and I assure you that it is profound. Fermented fruit isn't as rare as you seem to think. Ripe fruit falls off a tree and rots. That's fermentation. Apple cider sitting too long turns hard (alcoholic). That's not a special brewing process. That's just what happens given time. It's common and it's been incorporated into many species (including ours) life cycles. Is it that hard to believe that an organism can be so damaged that it is unable to reproduce itself, or does the problem come in believing that a lack of alcohol preference constitutes genetic damage?

The aspect of poisoning that you mention unfortunately does come into play with humans who distill their alcohol. Drinking a pound of everclear is poisonous. Eating a pound of plums is not. Alcohol is clearly not poisonous unless you poison yourself with excess.

[Mastiker]

What it suggests is that alcohol preference is an evolutionary advantage and when bred out of certain herbivorous and omnivorous species, is detrimental to those species' survival.

which explains why alchohol makes girls horny :duh:

and i just thought it was cause they got so drunk they didn't know a penis from a... well, just about anything.

[ReverendC]

which explains why alchohol makes girls horny.



As a matter of fact...

Just don't get me started on the evolutionary basis of prostitution.:innocent:

[Rotty]

One idea is an alcohol content limit say 30 or 35 %. I mean, who REALLY needs to drink that heavily.

I have rum, whiskey which are 40 % but i don't drink them plain, i mix 30 or 40 m l with alot of soft drink or something. But i would be happy with 30%.

Just an idea.

[gyoza]

Then people would just down more of the weaker stuff, just like people ordered 2 value meals after super-sizing was abolished. 10 cans of beer has more alcohol in it than a shot of vodka. Anything below 40% is weak sauce anyway :P

[Rotty]

Yes you are correct, but it means that it costs more to get drunk, and doesn't change for people that drink responsably. I think that this would be a good thing.

[whispering]

I think this may only be true for red, red wine :hphone:
Nope, the stronger the better. At the hospitals here, they usually give brandy snaps, if i remember right. Witch though is pretty much the same amount of alcohol then a glass of wine. But anything above one dose of alcohol is bad.

[jindojim]

Realistically, banning alcohol would not be a good idea, since it would still be easily available and obtainable. The demand for it would create much higher crime level, especially in organized crime, and people would still manage to get around the ban.

However, that isn't to say that alcohol should be seen treated as a benign drug either. The potential for overdosing is high, and drinking to excess can easily be lethal. Long term damage to health from sustained drinking also is a major concern for using alcohol. And while most people manage to drink with moderation, for those that become addicted to alcohol (alcoholics), the consequences are severe. For starters, there is no drug that can completely wean people off alcohol like there are for other illegal drugs. Drugs do exist to help cope with the effects of alcohol withdrawal, but relapse into alcoholism is high. Also, withdrawal from alcohol can be lethal as well for an alcoholic. Even in heroin addicts, while their withdrawal symptoms are severe, stopping usage will not kill them. The developing fetus is also highly susceptible to alcohol, since out of all the drugs, alcohol has one of the greatest debillitating effects on its development. These risks are made much more dangerous due to careless consumption of alcohol and lack of knowledge for its potential severe risks.

What should be imposed is tighter restrictions on alcohol usage, like more severe penalties for underage drinking and drinking while driving. Additionally, people should stop viewing alcohol as a benign drug and attach more social stigma to its usage through education and public awareness.

That being said, I do like to drink though :)