Beer: As Lethal as Tobacco.

[Darth Wong]

so what you're saying is that if a technology or a method to make the enforcement of alcohol prohibition safe and easy suddenly became available you'd support it?

In a heartbeat. Given the death and destruction related to alcohol every year it would be an ethical slamdunk, despite all of the "but I like it" bullshit complaints that would be heard.

The problem is that there isn't any realistic way to safely and easily enforce a prohibition in countries like the United States. For the most part all prohibition does is organized crime a major shot in the arm. The US's War on Drugs shows this.

I'm not going to go into the ethics of legalized drugs, because it can be argued either way morally (destruction of family vs. self determination, for example) and health-wise (medical marijuana vs. stuff like heroin, cocaine, etc.). But from a purely legal standpoint the repeal of drug prohibition would eliminate huge amounts of black market profits.

Did you actually read what you were responding to? This is a hypothetical situation we're talking about.

[Darth Wong]

please Mike. For every alcoholic there are thousands who safely enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, or savor a coctail once in a while.

So?

You would deny otherwise law abiding people an indulgence once in a while to prevent the irresponsible behavior of the few?

When tens of thousands of deaths a year are involved, yes. The objectively measurable negatives of alcohol consumption outweigh the subjective positives.

You would make otherwise law abiding citizens criminals for drinking a glass of beer after cutting the lawn on a summer afternoon?

To save tens of thousands of lives a year? Yes. Sorry, but "I love a beer on a Sunday afternoon" does not measure up to "my daughter looks like this because of a drunk driver".

YES! Dear god would someone think of the CHILDREN!

Do you have an actual ethics-based argument to offer, or just more of your bullshit?

A drunk driver can turn an innocent victim who looked like this:

into this:


Sorry, but that outweighs your "I like a beer on a Sunday afternoon" bullshit.

[Chmee]

please Mike. For every alcoholic there are thousands who safely enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, or savor a coctail once in a while.

So?

You would deny otherwise law abiding people an indulgence once in a while to prevent the irresponsible behavior of the few?

When tens of thousands of deaths a year are involved, yes. The objectively measurable negatives of alcohol consumption outweigh the subjective positives.

You would make otherwise law abiding citizens criminals for drinking a glass of beer after cutting the lawn on a summer afternoon?

To save tens of thousands of lives a year? Yes. Sorry, but "I love a beer on a Sunday afternoon" does not measure up to "my daughter looks like this because of a drunk driver".

YES! Dear god would someone think of the CHILDREN!

Do you have an actual ethics-based argument to offer, or just more of your bullshit?

A drunk driver can turn an innocent victim who looked like this:

into this:


Sorry, but that outweighs your "I like a beer on a Sunday afternoon" bullshit.

So ... people drive negligently ... let's outlaw cars?

Is it theoretically possible to legislate into existence a safe, sanitary nation where everyone is at minimal risk from their fellow citizens because any activity which might potentially endanger others is now prohibited and zealously enforced?

Probably ... but it sure doesn't sound like America ... or anywhere I'd want to live. You want to require breathalyzer interlocks on vehicle ignition systems, I'll get behind you on that way before I get behind another useless round of Prohibition that won't achieve the level of safety you're seeking because people will ignore it just as thoroughly as they did the first time.

[Col. Crackpot]

I don't dispute the fact that people who drive drunk are a scource on modern society. But you can't lump drunken drivers with resposnible adults who consume moderate levels of alcohol. Many thousands of people are killed or maimed in sports activities when fools act recklessly. By your logic to save a few thousand people from death or injury it would be perfectly acceptable to ban sport, after all it really isn't neccicary.

and for the love of christ, can you inline that pic of the burn victim!

[Darth Wong]

So ... people drive negligently ... let's outlaw cars?

Cars have objective benefits which one must weigh against the negatives. Alcohol does not.

Is it theoretically possible to legislate into existence a safe, sanitary nation where everyone is at minimal risk from their fellow citizens because any activity which might potentially endanger others is now prohibited and zealously enforced?

Probably ... but it sure doesn't sound like America ... or anywhere I'd want to live. You want to require breathalyzer interlocks on vehicle ignition systems, I'll get behind you on that way before I get behind another useless round of Prohibition that won't achieve the level of safety you're seeking because people will ignore it just as thoroughly as they did the first time.

Do you know how to read? Do you understand the difference between a completely hypothetical situation for the purpose of ethical discussion and an actual practical proposal? Or are you just an idiot?

[Darth Wong]

I don't dispute the fact that people who drive drunk are a scource on modern society. But you can't lump drunken drivers with resposnible adults who consume moderate levels of alcohol.

I don't have to. The point is that in our hypothetical scenario where you could wave a magic wand and make it impossible to procure alcoholic drinks, far fewer people would suffer. And the loss (enjoyment of a beer on Sunday) does not outweigh that suffering.

Many thousands of people are killed or maimed in sports activities when fools act recklessly. By your logic to save a few thousand people from death or injury it would be perfectly acceptable to ban sport, after all it really isn't neccicary.

If there was a sport that killed thousands of people every year and horribly mangled tens of thousands more, I would sure as hell ban it. Wouldn't you?

and for the love of christ, can you inline that pic of the burn victim!

Why? After all, it's such a trivial concern that you mocked it with your "please think of the children" bullshit. So it shouldn't bother you.

[Chmee]

So ... people drive negligently ... let's outlaw cars?

Cars have objective benefits which one must weigh against the negatives. Alcohol does not.

Is it theoretically possible to legislate into existence a safe, sanitary nation where everyone is at minimal risk from their fellow citizens because any activity which might potentially endanger others is now prohibited and zealously enforced?

Probably ... but it sure doesn't sound like America ... or anywhere I'd want to live. You want to require breathalyzer interlocks on vehicle ignition systems, I'll get behind you on that way before I get behind another useless round of Prohibition that won't achieve the level of safety you're seeking because people will ignore it just as thoroughly as they did the first time.

Do you know how to read? Do you understand the difference between a completely hypothetical situation for the purpose of ethical discussion and an actual practical proposal? Or are you just an idiot?

I understand that when you encounter a counter-argument you don't like you are ready with the blanket dismissals for injecting some reality into the hypothetical and some juvenile put-downs as a substitute for rational responses .... it's not particularly persuasive or flattering, I'll tell ya for nothing.

If by 'completely hypothetical' you mean completely divorced from reason, go right ahead, fantasize away.

[Darth Wong]

Do you know how to read? Do you understand the difference between a completely hypothetical situation for the purpose of ethical discussion and an actual practical proposal? Or are you just an idiot?

I understand that when you encounter a counter-argument you don't like you are ready with the blanket dismissals for injecting some reality into the hypothetical and some juvenile put-downs as a substitute for rational responses .... it's not particularly persuasive or flattering, I'll tell ya for nothing.

Notice how the imbecile does not bother addressing the point at all.

If by 'completely hypothetical' you mean completely divorced from reason, go right ahead, fantasize away.

Actually, it was Crackpot's hypothetical scenario; I was merely answering his question. But it's already obvious that you can't read, since you fire off knee-jerk responses without bothering to see what it is that you're talking about.

[Prozac the Robert]

There has to be a limit to any attempts to save lives, otherwise the ultimate outcome is to leave people with no freedoms at all. No one would be able to do anything because of the possible consequences to others. I realise you don't advocate living in a complete police state, but I think you go far too far.

Besides, you could stop most alcohol related deaths much more easily than banning all alcohol. Stopping clubs serving people over a certain limit would prevent the worst binge drinking. Harsher penalties for drink driving, combined perhaps with cars that breathalise you would reduce the risk of drunk drivers.

Also, not only are some drinks absolutely brilliantly good tasting, but people who drink in moderation often tend to live longer than those who don't drink at all. Would you take that away from them?

[Darth Wong]

There has to be a limit to any attempts to save lives, otherwise the ultimate outcome is to leave people with no freedoms at all.

Black/white fallacy.

Also, not only are some drinks absolutely brilliantly good tasting, but people who drink in moderation often tend to live longer than those who don't drink at all. Would you take that away from them?

That long-held myth has been debunked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/377381.stm

[Chmee]

Do you know how to read? Do you understand the difference between a completely hypothetical situation for the purpose of ethical discussion and an actual practical proposal? Or are you just an idiot?

I understand that when you encounter a counter-argument you don't like you are ready with the blanket dismissals for injecting some reality into the hypothetical and some juvenile put-downs as a substitute for rational responses .... it's not particularly persuasive or flattering, I'll tell ya for nothing.

Notice how the imbecile does not bother addressing the point at all.

If by 'completely hypothetical' you mean completely divorced from reason, go right ahead, fantasize away.

Actually, it was Crackpot's hypothetical scenario; I was merely answering his question. But it's already obvious that you can't read, since you fire off knee-jerk responses without bothering to see what it is that you're talking about.

For someone who added a real-world picture to persuade people to your viewpoint through shock value, you maybe should tone down the holier-than-thou attitude .... so far it's your argument that's got the holiness.

[Darth Wong]

For someone who added a real-world picture to persuade people to your viewpoint through shock value, you maybe should tone down the holier-than-thou attitude .... so far it's your argument that's got the holiness.

Is this your smarmy way of conceding that you were full of shit about pointing out the practicality issues in an intentionally unrealistic scenario and then attacking me for the scenario being unrealistic when it wasn't even my scenario to begin with?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a fine example of someone who is simultaneously too stubborn to admit error and too dense to realize that the error is plainly obvious for everyone to see.

[Chmee]

For someone who added a real-world picture to persuade people to your viewpoint through shock value, you maybe should tone down the holier-than-thou attitude .... so far it's your argument that's got the holiness.

Is this your smarmy way of conceding that you were full of shit about pointing out the practicality issues in an intentionally unrealistic scenario and then attacking me for the scenario being unrealistic when it wasn't even my scenario to begin with?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a fine example of someone who is simultaneously too stubborn to admit error and too dense to realize that the error is plainly obvious for everyone to see.

Um, actually I was pointing out the rather obvious hypocrisy of your personal attacks, but go ahead and bury it in more completely tangential nonsense, for some reason you seem to want to drag this one to HoS territory. Your prerogative.

[tharkûn]

There has to be a limit to any attempts to save lives, otherwise the ultimate outcome is to leave people with no freedoms at all. No one would be able to do anything because of the possible consequences to others. I realise you don't advocate living in a complete police state, but I think you go far too far.

And if you make freedom your rallying cry you end up with anarchy, vengeance killings, and the complete breakdown of society - meaning 90 odd percent of the human population dies out.

There is a reason why every frikking human socio-political group has some form of law or custom inhibiting total freedom.

The tipping point is where the most likely harm is evenly balanced against the most likely benifit. The sbujective value of specific freedoms means that the exact location of this equivalence point will vary, but for some ludicriously obvious cases like alcohol consumption it becomes readily apperent.

Besides, you could stop most alcohol related deaths much more easily than banning all alcohol. Stopping clubs serving people over a certain limit would prevent the worst binge drinking. Harsher penalties for drink driving, combined perhaps with cars that breathalise you would reduce the risk of drunk drivers.

The worst binge drinking occurs on private premises, it is far cheaper to binge at a frat than at a bar. Harsher penalties for drunk driving are going to show very little effectiveness, the problem is tha alcohol inhibits decision making skills and drunks either think: they aren't THAT drunk or they are but they can still drive.

Mike was dealing with a hypothetical scenario wherein you had the choice of magical prohibition that works or the status quo, that decision is a no brainer - goodbye booze. Sure it would be even better if you had a wand that eliminated all the negatives associated with booze, but left the good social impacts intact, but that is a quite stupid hypothetical scenario.

Also, not only are some drinks absolutely brilliantly good tasting, but people who drink in moderation often tend to live longer than those who don't drink at all. Would you take that away from them?

That research has always struck me as a bit sketchy; moderate drinkers and teetotalers are hardly otherwise identical groups. The only pysiological track I've seen to demonstrate a mechanism is centered around plaque build up and I can give you a dozen other substances that do the same damn things.

The consensus I have read seems to be between a year or two for "moderate" alcohol consumption. Weighing that against the life expectancy decreases from drunk driving, accidental deaths, liver problems, etc. and on average I would be astonished if the net gain in life expectency isn't wieghted toward prohibition.

Given a magic wand choice between effective prohibition and the status quo the answer is bloody obvious.

[Durandal]

There's a certain price that comes with freedoms, and that is responsibility. People who drive while talking on cell phones are more impaired than drunk drivers, yet cell phones remain legal. You might argue that cell phones have certain benefits, but drivers lived just fine without them for decades.

That's why you ban talking on a cell phone while driving. You don't ban cell phones. And that's why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, but alcohol is not.

[Darth Wong]

For someone who added a real-world picture to persuade people to your viewpoint through shock value, you maybe should tone down the holier-than-thou attitude .... so far it's your argument that's got the holiness.

Is this your smarmy way of conceding that you were full of shit about pointing out the practicality issues in an intentionally unrealistic scenario and then attacking me for the scenario being unrealistic when it wasn't even my scenario to begin with?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a fine example of someone who is simultaneously too stubborn to admit error and too dense to realize that the error is plainly obvious for everyone to see.

Um, actually I was pointing out the rather obvious hypocrisy of your personal attacks, but go ahead and bury it in more completely tangential nonsense, for some reason you seem to want to drag this one to HoS territory. Your prerogative.

Oh, so when I show how you are full of shit, your only response is to accuse me of "hypocrisy"? You think it's "hypocrisy" to post a picture of how horrible drunk-driving is in order to illustrate the severity of the problem for Crackpot's scenario? How is that hypocritical, fucktard? And how does that address any of the points raised in my post, or nullify your cretinous errors?

[Darth Wong]

There's a certain price that comes with freedoms, and that is responsibility. People who drive while talking on cell phones are more impaired than drunk drivers, yet cell phones remain legal. You might argue that cell phones have certain benefits, but drivers lived just fine without them for decades.

That's why you ban talking on a cell phone while driving. You don't ban cell phones. And that's why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, but alcohol is not.

Cell-phones, unlike alcohol, have some practical use and objective benefits. When one is weighing nonexistent objective benefits against very real objective harm, it's not a difficult decision to make.

[LordShaithis]

So Mike, you'd also eliminate fatty food, motorcycles, casual sex, prizefighting, and lawn darts, right? Or do these things not kill enough people to be worth banning? If so, what's the magic number in terms of death? Should I post a gross picture of a dead kid with a lawn dart in his eye and ask if one of these every few years is worth the legality of a little backyard game hardly anyone plays?

[Chmee]

Given a magic wand choice between effective prohibition and the status quo the answer is bloody obvious.

From a straight healthcare cost perspective, I guess the choice is obvious ... but your 'effective prohibition' is still basically just a massive intrusion into the personal choices of citizens in the name of making everyone 'safer' statistically. Is that such an 'obvious' choice? We'd all be 'safer' locked in padded rooms, fed a nutritious broth through a soft rubber spigot in the wall ... but you've paid a pretty hefty price in liberty for that version of safety, and although the price you're paying in this idealized prohibition is significantly lower, it is still a sacrifice of personal liberty that I hope isn't all *that* easy to choose away.

[Darth Wong]

So Mike, you'd also eliminate fatty food, motorcycles, casual sex, prizefighting, and lawn darts, right? Or do these things not kill enough people to be worth banning? If so, what's the magic number in terms of death? Should I post a gross picture of a dead kid with a lawn dart in his eye and ask if one of these every few years is worth the legality of a little backyard game hardly anyone plays?

Obviously, one must make a judgement call, and more deaths than 9/11 every single year seems like more than enough to say that the negatives outweigh the positives, if any (and I should note that death by drunk driving is only a small portion of the social problems caused by alcohlism). Welcome to reality, where one must actually make judgement calls instead of relying on infantile black/white thinking.

[Darth Wong]

Given a magic wand choice between effective prohibition and the status quo the answer is bloody obvious.

From a straight healthcare cost perspective, I guess the choice is obvious ... but your 'effective prohibition' is still basically just a massive intrusion into the personal choices of citizens in the name of making everyone 'safer' statistically.

Why is it so "massive"? How much would your life really be affected by the loss of alcoholic drinks? How much of your lifestyle revolves around alcohol?

[Durandal]

There's a certain price that comes with freedoms, and that is responsibility. People who drive while talking on cell phones are more impaired than drunk drivers, yet cell phones remain legal. You might argue that cell phones have certain benefits, but drivers lived just fine without them for decades.

That's why you ban talking on a cell phone while driving. You don't ban cell phones. And that's why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, but alcohol is not.

Cell-phones, unlike alcohol, have some practical use and objective benefits. When one is weighing nonexistent objective benefits against very real objective harm, it's not a difficult decision to make.

So anything made purely for recreation can be considered for banning if it's harmful when abused?

[Darth Wong]

There's a certain price that comes with freedoms, and that is responsibility. People who drive while talking on cell phones are more impaired than drunk drivers, yet cell phones remain legal. You might argue that cell phones have certain benefits, but drivers lived just fine without them for decades.

That's why you ban talking on a cell phone while driving. You don't ban cell phones. And that's why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, but alcohol is not.

Cell-phones, unlike alcohol, have some practical use and objective benefits. When one is weighing nonexistent objective benefits against very real objective harm, it's not a difficult decision to make.

So anything made purely for recreation can be considered for banning if it's harmful when abused?

If the damage was substantial enough to be considered a major public health risk and there was some magical way to actually make this ban work, yes. I take it that you think the public welfare is completely irrelevant when making ethical judgements, since you seem to rely exclusively on rights?

[Chmee]

Given a magic wand choice between effective prohibition and the status quo the answer is bloody obvious.

From a straight healthcare cost perspective, I guess the choice is obvious ... but your 'effective prohibition' is still basically just a massive intrusion into the personal choices of citizens in the name of making everyone 'safer' statistically.

Why is it so "massive"? How much would your life really be affected by the loss of alcoholic drinks? How much of your lifestyle revolves around alcohol?

You're talking about the government deciding what it's okay for you to eat and drink in the privacy of your home. What it's okay to put in your body. How much more personal can you get? (Well, let's not go there.) It's as fundamental an intrusion on liberty as it is possible to have, so from my standpoint I consider it a 'massive' intrusion on liberty. It's not a question of how much of my lifestyle revolved around alcohol, specifically ... but yes, a great big chunk of my 'lifestyle' revolves around my body and what I do with it .. that's basically my entire 'lifestyle.'

Now perhaps this is a more uniquely American viewpoint, with a Constitution supposedly based upon the LIMITS of government power, not the EXPANSIVENESS of it, but that is certainly my bias. Freedom is meaningless without the freedom to make choices that others would consider mistakes. When you make those choices and injure others, you should pay a price, but any attempt to limit choices on something as fundamental as your own body will always involve a liberty issue that is more complex than 'it will mean less deaths so we must do it' analysis.

[Durandal]

If the damage was substantial enough to be considered a major public health risk and there was some magical way to actually make this ban work, yes. I take it that you think the public welfare is completely irrelevant when making ethical judgements, since you seem to rely exclusively on rights?

No, I support torturing terrorists for information under a "ticking bomb" scenario, remember? I was just trying to clarify your stance.