Beer: As Lethal as Tobacco.

[tharkûn]

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.

There comes a point where the subjective value of liberty and freedom outweigh the objective value of safety. Remember drinking does impair the liberties of others. Drunk drivers routinely eliminate freedoms, like say walking, for their victims. Alcoholic parents routinely piss over their childrens' social development, education, and general opportunities - ultimately leading to less liberty due to alcohol.

In short even one looks strictly at the freedom gained or lost by prohibiting alcohol, there are still ludicrious numbers of individuals who would gain freedom from its banning.

In the end it is a tradeoff, at some point the harm likely to be avoided is not worth the cost likely to be incurred. Outside of the extrema the balance between harm and cost is not as obvious, in the case of magic wand alcohol prohibition it is glaringly obvious.

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

Anything is considered for banning, the ethics of it come down to the expected harm avoided balanced against the expected cost. The cost of banning alcohol via magic wand is quite low, the harm avoided is staggeringly high - it makes most wars look trivial in comparison. When the tradeoff is this obvious it is a no brainer.

When the expected harm avoided is much lower then things are less obvious and the balance often lies against banning.

[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.

Black/white fallacy.

Heh. You say that and then completely ignore my point that there are less restrictive ways of dealing with the problem. I'm not sugesting anarchy, but you cannot save everybody, and have to live by some sort of balalnce of safety against freedoms. I believe that tighter limits on how much can be drunk in pubs, and stricter controlls on drink driving would be nearly as beneficial as banning alcohol with regards to health, without so many of the side effects.

That long-held myth has been debunked.

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

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei ... hol/dn3249
This seems to disagree, and was published after that article. As far as I can tell without doing much searching, the benefits don't seem to be especially clear cut though.

[Julhelm]

You can ban alcohol, but people will still know how to produce it, unless you also ban it's ingredients.

As for the whole drunk-driving argument, more people die from car accidents each year than any other reason, yet noone ever cries for banning cars, even if doing so would eliminate ALL accidents caused by cars, drunk drivers or not.

[tharkûn]

You're talking about the government deciding what it's okay for you to eat and drink in the privacy of your home.

Theoretically an individual can eat anything, it is all a matter of dosage. Should suicidal people be allowed to consume class 5 pathogens for the hell of it? At some point even your right eat ends when it gets to my nose.

Given that alcohol use impairs the freedom of others - from making bad parents worse to drunk drivers - even a strictly rights based paradigm dictates that under certain circumstances prohibition is the ethical choice.

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.

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. Currently alcohol use is a swinging fist that does connect to somebody else's nose. Even if we drop all the medical costs of alcohol, all the suicides attributable to it, we still come back to the drunk drivers, the alcoholic parents, the drunk brawlers, etc. Numerous people have their rights impaired by somebody else's choice to drink.

On balance it is certainly possible that more liberty is lost by allowing the flow of alcohol than by magically banning it.

[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.

Heh. You say that and then completely ignore my point that there are less restrictive ways of dealing with the problem.

What point? The one where you proposed a "solution" that has already been tried in various places with no real effect? The one where you ignored the fact that drunk driving is but one of the many social problems caused by alcoholism? The one where you pretended that keeping someone from getting falling-down drunk would somehow solve the drunk driving problem, even though you don't need to be that drunk in order to be a dangerous driver? That "point"? I figured nobody would take it seriously, although you apparently do.

I'm not sugesting anarchy, but you cannot save everybody, and have to live by some sort of balalnce of safety against freedoms. I believe that tighter limits on how much can be drunk in pubs, and stricter controlls on drink driving would be nearly as beneficial as banning alcohol with regards to health, without so many of the side effects.

Again, you miss the point: in a hypothetical scenario proposed by Crackpot, where you can just wave some magic wand and make alcoholic drinks impossible to acquire, most of the side-effects you mention do not exist. I was answering Crackpot's scenario as an ethical exercise.

That long-held myth has been debunked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/377381.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei ... hol/dn3249
This seems to disagree, and was published after that article. As far as I can tell without doing much searching, the benefits don't seem to be especially clear cut though.

Your article says at the end "We do not advise the public to begin drinking to prevent heart disease. There are well-proven ways that do not have the risks associated with alcohol consumption." I wouldn't count on that as a recommendation for your position if I were you.

[aerius]

As for the whole drunk-driving argument, more people die from car accidents each year than any other reason, yet noone ever cries for banning cars, even if doing so would eliminate ALL accidents caused by cars, drunk drivers or not.

Ban cars and you'll need to completely restructure society and/or rebuild the entire transportation system. I'm pretty sure that no modern country would survive the transistion process.

[Darth Wong]

You can ban alcohol, but people will still know how to produce it, unless you also ban it's ingredients.

As for the whole drunk-driving argument, more people die from car accidents each year than any other reason, yet noone ever cries for banning cars, even if doing so would eliminate ALL accidents caused by cars, drunk drivers or not.

I think I need to institute some rule that people can be penalized for posting arguments that have already been made before in the same fucking thread.

[Chmee]

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. Currently alcohol use is a swinging fist that does connect to somebody else's nose. Even if we drop all the medical costs of alcohol, all the suicides attributable to it, we still come back to the drunk drivers, the alcoholic parents, the drunk brawlers, etc. Numerous people have their rights impaired by somebody else's choice to drink.

You get into some difficult issues there. Most of the harm to others that you're pointing to is not a direct consequence of the alcohol consumption, it's a consequence of willful choices made after consuming the alcohol -- the choice to drive, the choice to brawl, the choice to berate a child. So you're left choosing between definitely infringing on every individual's liberty ("you may not do this") and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party as a consequence of irresponsible behavior. We have remedies for dealing with irresponsible behavior, they're called the civil & criminal judicial system ... but as a society we have a strong bias against pre-emptively infringing liberty as a prophylactic against irresponsible behavior.

[Frank Hipper]

Put disulfiram in the water supply; keep booze legal, but you can't so much as use mouthwash without getting violently ill.

[Darth Wong]

Put disulfiram in the water supply; keep booze legal, but you can't so much as use mouthwash without getting violently ill.

That's fucking hilarious.

[Prozac the Robert]

What point? The one where you proposed a "solution" that has already been tried in various places with no real effect? The one where you ignored the fact that drunk driving is but one of the many social problems caused by alcoholism? The one where you pretended that keeping someone from getting falling-down drunk would somehow solve the drunk driving problem, even though you don't need to be that drunk in order to be a dangerous driver? That "point"? I figured nobody would take it seriously, although you apparently do.

If you can sucessfully ban all alcohol, then I think I should be allowed to sucessfully ban drunk people from operating cars. It could be done mostly with technology, where as the scenario relys on magic. That plus stopping people getting completely drunk and swarming out of pubs and clubs at closing time would probably reduce the damage caused by alcohol down to the sort of level that you might consider acceptable.

Again, you miss the point: in a hypothetical scenario proposed by Crackpot, where you can just wave some magic wand and make alcoholic drinks impossible to acquire, most of the side-effects you mention do not exist. I was answering Crackpot's scenario as an ethical exercise.

I was also considering side effects such as liberties and my losing my enjoyment of a nice pint of ale, but thats neither here nor there. If you'd rather stick to debating the on/off proposition, I'll just let you get on with it.

[Darth Wong]

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. Currently alcohol use is a swinging fist that does connect to somebody else's nose. Even if we drop all the medical costs of alcohol, all the suicides attributable to it, we still come back to the drunk drivers, the alcoholic parents, the drunk brawlers, etc. Numerous people have their rights impaired by somebody else's choice to drink.

You get into some difficult issues there. Most of the harm to others that you're pointing to is not a direct consequence of the alcohol consumption, it's a consequence of willful choices made after consuming the alcohol -- the choice to drive, the choice to brawl, the choice to berate a child. So you're left choosing between definitely infringing on every individual's liberty ("you may not do this") and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party as a consequence of irresponsible behavior. We have remedies for dealing with irresponsible behavior, they're called the civil & criminal judicial system ... but as a society we have a strong bias against pre-emptively infringing liberty as a prophylactic against irresponsible behavior.

Appealing to your personal prejudices and preferences in order to resolve an ethical issue is no resolution at all. At heart, if you had it in your power to simply make it impossible to buy alcoholic drinks by waving a magic wand, would you do it? If not, why not? Because of this high-minded "liberty" talk even though alcohol does not actually play an important role in the lifestyle of anyone unless he's one of these problem drinkers?

Liberty is something to be balanced against other concerns; simply citing the magic L-word as if it automatically trumps everything else is absurd.

[Darth Wong]

What point? The one where you proposed a "solution" that has already been tried in various places with no real effect? The one where you ignored the fact that drunk driving is but one of the many social problems caused by alcoholism? The one where you pretended that keeping someone from getting falling-down drunk would somehow solve the drunk driving problem, even though you don't need to be that drunk in order to be a dangerous driver? That "point"? I figured nobody would take it seriously, although you apparently do.

If you can sucessfully ban all alcohol, then I think I should be allowed to sucessfully ban drunk people from operating cars. It could be done mostly with technology, where as the scenario relys on magic. That plus stopping people getting completely drunk and swarming out of pubs and clubs at closing time would probably reduce the damage caused by alcohol down to the sort of level that you might consider acceptable.

So your solution to Crackpot's ethical scenario is simply to concoct a different artificial scenario that you prefer? Why don't I just concoct one where alcoholic beverages have no effect on the human nervous system while we're futzing around with competing bullshit scenarios then?

BTW, attempts to pretend that your ban is realistic or would actually work are futile. Alcoholics will find a way to get their alcohol; anyone in addiction counseling will tell you this. That's why you cannot really make this happen in real life and can only discuss it in the context of a "wave a magic wand" scenario.

Again, you miss the point: in a hypothetical scenario proposed by Crackpot, where you can just wave some magic wand and make alcoholic drinks impossible to acquire, most of the side-effects you mention do not exist. I was answering Crackpot's scenario as an ethical exercise.

I was also considering side effects such as liberties and my losing my enjoyment of a nice pint of ale, but thats neither here nor there.

What makes you think I was not taking them into account? I've said repeatedly that they are insignificant next to the damage done. Please read the thread.

[aerius]

Put disulfiram in the water supply; keep booze legal, but you can't so much as use mouthwash without getting violently ill.

So instead of getting a hangover the next day, the drinker gets an extra nasty hangover on the spot. I could actually see that being used as an educational tool.

[Col. Crackpot]

Put disulfiram in the water supply; keep booze legal, but you can't so much as use mouthwash without getting violently ill.

So instead of getting a hangover the next day, the drinker gets an extra nasty hangover on the spot. I could actually see that being used as an educational tool.

or instant death. That way we can save the people by killing the people. Just like that village in Vietnam.

[Chmee]

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. Currently alcohol use is a swinging fist that does connect to somebody else's nose. Even if we drop all the medical costs of alcohol, all the suicides attributable to it, we still come back to the drunk drivers, the alcoholic parents, the drunk brawlers, etc. Numerous people have their rights impaired by somebody else's choice to drink.

You get into some difficult issues there. Most of the harm to others that you're pointing to is not a direct consequence of the alcohol consumption, it's a consequence of willful choices made after consuming the alcohol -- the choice to drive, the choice to brawl, the choice to berate a child. So you're left choosing between definitely infringing on every individual's liberty ("you may not do this") and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party as a consequence of irresponsible behavior. We have remedies for dealing with irresponsible behavior, they're called the civil & criminal judicial system ... but as a society we have a strong bias against pre-emptively infringing liberty as a prophylactic against irresponsible behavior.

Appealing to your personal prejudices and preferences in order to resolve an ethical issue is no resolution at all. At heart, if you had it in your power to simply make it impossible to buy alcoholic drinks by waving a magic wand, would you do it? If not, why not? Because of this high-minded "liberty" talk even though alcohol does not actually play an important role in the lifestyle of anyone unless he's one of these problem drinkers?

Liberty is something to be balanced against other concerns; simply citing the magic L-word as if it automatically trumps everything else is absurd.

It does not 'trump everything,' but there's another word for solutions like 'waving a magic wand' to make everyone do what you want them to do ... it's called totalitarianism. Although ignoring that might make the hypothetical easier to resolve, I think it would be a disservice to the seriousness of the question. When you decide that, for issues of 'security,' you just have to make everyone's choices for them, you're choosing a totalitarian solution ... and there's nothing 'magical' about that to me.

[tharkûn]

You get into some difficult issues there. Most of the harm to others that you're pointing to is not a direct consequence of the alcohol consumption, it's a consequence of willful choices made after consuming the alcohol -- the choice to drive, the choice to brawl, the choice to berate a child. So you're left choosing between definitely infringing on every individual's liberty ("you may not do this") and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party as a consequence of irresponsible behavior. We have remedies for dealing with irresponsible behavior, they're called the civil & criminal judicial system ... but as a society we have a strong bias against pre-emptively infringing liberty as a prophylactic against irresponsible behavior.

An ethical choice must take into account the fact that human beings are not perfect unless that is one the givens in a hypothetical scenario. Staying within the bounds of the original hypothetical scenario means that you can ban alcohol, but human beings are still going to be irresponsible in numerous cases.

We already infringe on everyone's liberty "you may not drive while intoxicated", that is a liberty society does not allow. Indeed the mere act of drunk driving itself harms no one, it is only the extremely good likelihood that they will hit someone else that causes any harm. It is likely that drunk driving will lead to adverse consequences, it is likely that the free flow of alcohol will lead to adverse consequences.

In short you already implicitly agree that rights can be impinged upon because it is likely exercise of those rights will impinge upon the rights of others. So you have a few choices:
1. Stick to your guns and advocate rescinding the ban on drunk driving as that limits liberty.
2. Find some measure of degree, not kind, that makes drunk driving bannable, but not alcohol.
3. Admit that magic wand prohibition is better than the status quo.

[Darth Wong]

It does not 'trump everything,' but there's another word for solutions like 'waving a magic wand' to make everyone do what you want them to do ... it's called totalitarianism. Although ignoring that might make the hypothetical easier to resolve, I think it would be a disservice to the seriousness of the question.

You are bound and determined to change the parameters of the scenario, aren't you? Do you understand why hypothetical scenarios such as this one are generated in the first place? It is to pose an ethical dilemma for the purposes of discussion, so that one can ask what is right or wrong without being able to cop out of the dilemma by citing some practical issue that makes it moot. You continually insist on trying to find a way to cop out of the dilemma, this time by arguing that the "magic wand" should be replaced by totalitarianism so you won't have to address the fundamental ethics dilemma being posed and you can conveniently dismiss it with your L-word.

When you decide that, for issues of 'security,' you just have to make everyone's choices for them, you're choosing a totalitarian solution ... and there's nothing 'magical' about that to me.

More black/white thinking. Life is a series of judgement calls, Chmee. Ethics lives in the gray areas, whether you like it or not. Black/white thinking is for children.

[Darth Servo]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei ... hol/dn3249
This seems to disagree, and was published after that article. As far as I can tell without doing much searching, the benefits don't seem to be especially clear cut though.

Their first idea is that alcohol is a blood thinner. If thats truly the reason, just take an asprin instead.

[Chmee]

You get into some difficult issues there. Most of the harm to others that you're pointing to is not a direct consequence of the alcohol consumption, it's a consequence of willful choices made after consuming the alcohol -- the choice to drive, the choice to brawl, the choice to berate a child. So you're left choosing between definitely infringing on every individual's liberty ("you may not do this") and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party as a consequence of irresponsible behavior. We have remedies for dealing with irresponsible behavior, they're called the civil & criminal judicial system ... but as a society we have a strong bias against pre-emptively infringing liberty as a prophylactic against irresponsible behavior.

An ethical choice must take into account the fact that human beings are not perfect unless that is one the givens in a hypothetical scenario. Staying within the bounds of the original hypothetical scenario means that you can ban alcohol, but human beings are still going to be irresponsible in numerous cases.

We already infringe on everyone's liberty "you may not drive while intoxicated", that is a liberty society does not allow. Indeed the mere act of drunk driving itself harms no one, it is only the extremely good likelihood that they will hit someone else that causes any harm. It is likely that drunk driving will lead to adverse consequences, it is likely that the free flow of alcohol will lead to adverse consequences.[emphasis added]

This seems like a difficult presumption to support. I've had wine with dinner for 20 years, I have an occasional Scotch probably every week, I drink beer at the ball game ..... and if I'm going to be driving, I stop drinking at least an hour before doing so and switch to water. If I feel impaired, I stay longer, or I call a cab. Millions of people consume alcohol without abusing it, just as they consume sugar without getting morbidly obese.

In short you already implicitly agree that rights can be impinged upon because it is likely exercise of those rights will impinge upon the rights of others. So you have a few choices:
1. Stick to your guns and advocate rescinding the ban on drunk driving as that limits liberty.
2. Find some measure of degree, not kind, that makes drunk driving bannable, but not alcohol.
3. Admit that magic wand prohibition is better than the status quo.

The analogy breaks down a little here ... telling me what I can do to or with my body is not quite the same thing as telling me what I can do in public to other's bodies ... driving while impaired is just not the same as sitting on my couch impaired, I'm sorry. So yes, I'll stick to my assertion that there's a different liberty interest involved in the two activities.

But you're right in that both cases, in classic Constitutional analysis, require a 'balancing' test of the liberty of the individual against the valid interest of the State -- in this case, keeping people from being harmed by drunks. That balancing test abhors black & white absolutes like prohibition, so maybe it's too murky for this hypothetical. But if the choice is between a 'status quo' where we all have a choice, and a 'magic wand' that just takes that choice away, I'm always going to be highly suspicious of the magic wand.

[Frank Hipper]

Put disulfiram in the water supply; keep booze legal, but you can't so much as use mouthwash without getting violently ill.

So instead of getting a hangover the next day, the drinker gets an extra nasty hangover on the spot. I could actually see that being used as an educational tool.

What do you think Charter Hospitals use in treating alcoholism?

It's use can also be ordered by the court, the drunkies are given their pill by court clerks with a cup of water, and have to swallow them in front of the judge.

[tharkûn]

This seems like a difficult presumption to support. I've had wine with dinner for 20 years, I have an occasional Scotch probably every week, I drink beer at the ball game ..... and if I'm going to be driving, I stop drinking at least an hour before doing so and switch to water. If I feel impaired, I stay longer, or I call a cab. Millions of people consume alcohol without abusing it, just as they consume sugar without getting morbidly obese.

So what? Millions of people took Vioxx with demonstrable benifit and no adverse reaction, a few people died and it is pulled from the market. The point is people DO abuse alcohol and they WILL continue to do so regardless of what laws you put on the books against it.

The analogy breaks down a little here ... telling me what I can do to or with my body is not quite the same thing as telling me what I can do in public to other's bodies ... driving while impaired is just not the same as sitting on my couch impaired, I'm sorry. So yes, I'll stick to my assertion that there's a different liberty interest involved in the two activities.

Oh please don't try that crap, it is a difference of degree, not kind here let me refresh your memory:

you're left choosing between definitely infringing on every individual's liberty ("you may not do this") and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party as a consequence of irresponsible behavior.

When you ban drunk driving you are definitely infringing on overy individual's liberty; and potentially infringing ong the liberties of a third party. The only difference here is one of degree, there is more infringement by saying thou shalt not drink than thou shalt not drive intoxicated, just as there is greater potential for infringing on the liberties of a third party.

But if the choice is between a 'status quo' where we all have a choice, and a 'magic wand' that just takes that choice away, I'm always going to be highly suspicious of the magic wand.

It's a hypothetical scenario wherein there is no unintended consequence of using the damn wand. It does exactly as promised and affects only those directly affected by its primary purpose.

Why is it so hard for you to give a straight, consistent answer? Liberties must be restrained when taking them causes a greater loss of liberty somewhere else. You implicity agree that this is the case with drunk driving. You cannot show me how the liberty to ingest alcohol is more vital than the right of kids not to have to deal with drunken fool parents, the right of innocents not to be killed or maimed by drunk drivers, or the rights of people not to be assualted when a drunk's impaired mental faculties lead to violence.

On my side I'm protecting the liberty to breathe, walk, learn, and grow without some drunk dicking it over for you. On your side you are protecting the liberty to ingest a palatable substance in midly psycoactive quantities. Which set of liberties is more important?

[Chmee]

This seems like a difficult presumption to support. I've had wine with dinner for 20 years, I have an occasional Scotch probably every week, I drink beer at the ball game ..... and if I'm going to be driving, I stop drinking at least an hour before doing so and switch to water. If I feel impaired, I stay longer, or I call a cab. Millions of people consume alcohol without abusing it, just as they consume sugar without getting morbidly obese.

So what? Millions of people took Vioxx with demonstrable benifit and no adverse reaction, a few people died and it is pulled from the market. The point is people DO abuse alcohol and they WILL continue to do so regardless of what laws you put on the books against it.

Um, the people taking the Vioxx were the ones that died ... is that really a valid comparison if our discussion is about protecting people from alcohol users more than protecting the users themselves?

The analogy breaks down a little here ... telling me what I can do to or with my body is not quite the same thing as telling me what I can do in public to other's bodies ... driving while impaired is just not the same as sitting on my couch impaired, I'm sorry. So yes, I'll stick to my assertion that there's a different liberty interest involved in the two activities.

Oh please don't try that crap, it is a difference of degree, not kind here let me refresh your memory:

you're left choosing between definitely infringing on every individual's liberty ("you may not do this") and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party as a consequence of irresponsible behavior.

When you ban drunk driving you are definitely infringing on overy individual's liberty; and potentially infringing on the liberties of a third party. The only difference here is one of degree, there is more infringement by saying thou shalt not drink than thou shalt not drive intoxicated, just as there is greater potential for infringing on the liberties of a third party.

I agree there's a difference of degree when speaking of how much you're infringing a liberty in this balancing test ... I do still see a difference of type when regulating purely personal behavior (drinking & staying home) vs. behavior that can impact third parties (drinking & driving). Don't want to harp on that, because it seems like a minor sideline of the discussion.

But if the choice is between a 'status quo' where we all have a choice, and a 'magic wand' that just takes that choice away, I'm always going to be highly suspicious of the magic wand.

It's a hypothetical scenario wherein there is no unintended consequence of using the damn wand. It does exactly as promised and affects only those directly affected by its primary purpose.

Why is it so hard for you to give a straight, consistent answer? Liberties must be restrained when taking them causes a greater loss of liberty somewhere else. You implicity agree that this is the case with drunk driving. You cannot show me how the liberty to ingest alcohol is more vital than the right of kids not to have to deal with drunken fool parents, the right of innocents not to be killed or maimed by drunk drivers, or the rights of people not to be assualted when a drunk's impaired mental faculties lead to violence.

Well, I think I answered this already ... I'm referring to the intended consequence of the 'wand' here, aren't I? It's removing a choice from everyone, a successful prohibition, right? I don't see how you can look at the lost liberty in that hypothetical as an 'unintended' consequence, it's the entire point of the action.

As for a 'straight, consistent' answer, I already pointed out that balancing tests of liberty vs. security don't lend themselves to absolute black & whites, so I'll reiterate that. The part of my point you're ignoring is which way we lean in a free society -- we lean very heavily against presumptive solutions which pre-empt individual free will, solutions along the lines of 'because some will abuse alcohol with negative consequences, let's assume everyone might and remove their choice.' I could say that fundamentalist religions lead some people to abuse children, support disastrous legislative agendas, and blow up health care facilities, but even if it's true there's a real problem (in this country's political philosophy) with issuing an edict that fundamentalist religion is bad for you and nobody is allowed to consume it.

Freedom's a bitch sometimes, no question about it ... I just prefer it to the alternatives.

[Darth Wong]

Um, the people taking the Vioxx were the ones that died ... is that really a valid comparison if our discussion is about protecting people from alcohol users more than protecting the users themselves?

You think that alcoholics suffer no consequences of their own behaviour? Alcohol is WORSE because it not only shortens the lifespan of the user but also endangers everyone around him.

Well, I think I answered this already ... I'm referring to the intended consequence of the 'wand' here, aren't I? It's removing a choice from everyone, a successful prohibition, right? I don't see how you can look at the lost liberty in that hypothetical as an 'unintended' consequence, it's the entire point of the action.

Could you please name all of the people who fought wars and died for the freedom to drink alcoholic beverages? Or the passage in the Constitution where it says that this is a fundamental right? Or the part of the UN Universal Decalaration of Human Rights where this is enumerated? You seem to act as if this is one of those really important fundamental freedoms that people should be willing to risk or sacrifice their lives for (tens of thousands of lives per year, in fact); I don't recall seeing anyone but you describe it as such.

[Stormbringer]

Or the passage in the Constitution where it says that this is a fundamental right?

Amendment XXI perhaps?