Question:
Tobacco kills over 1000 people per day. Demon Rum is no where near that.
Let us consult a real authority on this matter: (partial repost) NOTICE HOW CAFFEINE(coffee?) KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS COMBINED! In 1990, according to the United States Surgeon General, alcohol killed over 28 times as many people – 130,000 – as did all illegal drugs *combined*. The only drug that’s a bigger killer is tobacco, which killed 360,000. It’s not surprising that they’re trying to get you to look elsewhere. What is surprising is that they’re pointing the finger at Marijuana, which is one of the *safest* drugs around. But if you ask them why they’re opposed to a drug which has never killed *anyone*, a likely response might be: Why ask why? Drink Bud Dry Don’t be fooled! Just say NO to the "War on Drugs". References: U.S. Surgeon General’s Actuarial info, 1990 Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000 [legal] Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000 [legal] Prescribed drugs . . . . . . . 18,675 [legal] Caffeine . . . . . . . . . . . 5,800 [legal] Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,390 [illegal] Heroin . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,147 [illegal] Aspirin . . . . . . . . . . . . 986 [legal] Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . 0 [illegal] — DRUG PROHIBITION CAUSES VIOLENCE !!! (remember 1929?) O—- These are my views, not necessarily those of my employer! <<<<—-O
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – res However, anyone who drinks is demonstrating that they have the res wisdom, if not the intellect, of a clam. This is very impolite. Do you really believe that anyone who drinks alcohol is a fool? Do you do nothing that has an adverse effect on your health? No sweet food? (Any will increase the level of tooth decay somewhat). No outdoor sports (eg running on roads, it increases your risk of being killed by a car, also the amount of poluted air you breath, you could get the excersise by running around your home, making sure you empty the room of things to trip over first of course). Impolite… perhaps. True, though. And yes, I do a few things that are in that category (and I won’t argue that, for example, my eating more calories than are good for me is stupid). I would say, however, that it is a lot MORE unwise to consume a material that you aren’t even evolved to consume (as opposed to sugar and meats, for example, which I may well eat too much of but which are, at least, normal parts of an omnivore’s diet) and which is, in actuality, a poison. (RUNNING? You live in a world where you can avoid such nasty physical effort and you RUN?) That alcohol is an addictive drug with nasty side effects does not mean that to drink alcoholic beverages one must be stupid. Merly that one must believe that the advantages (eg, the stuff does taste damn good) outway the disadvantages for some level of consumption. I’d still class it as stupid, just like mountain climbing. Okay, so it’s fun and you get a kick. It’s still stupid to trust your life to one rope and a little metal pin while swinging 500 feet above hard sharp stone. (And I did used to do free climbing, so I admit to even greater stupidity.)
Depends on what yu think your life is *for*. Some people don’t think they’re living at all if they don’t take some risks. The risk in a bottle of burgundy is *very* low, at least for me. And the pleasure can be quite substantial. Obviously, the equation is different for you: Actually, to me anything with alcohol content above 1% tastes exactly like what it is: a product of controlled rot. I can’t tell the difference between beer, wine, and rum except for presence/absence of fizz and the amount of "bite" (i.e., does it sting like a SOB going down?).
Well, the "controlled rot" argument is perhaps a bit biased in choice of words. After all, cheese, sauerkraut, and Chinese black beans are all fermented products, too, and if you never heard a Chinese person speaking on the disgusting habits of rotten-milk-eaters, you have a treat coming. 8-) res Ditto for smokers. Same argument holds. Smoking _anything_ in public however is somewhere between incredibly anti-social and homicidal. Or suicidal if, say, you’re doing it around someone like me who’s violently allergic to it (and interested in continuing his own ability to breathe…).
OK, fine. I’m allergic to peanuts; doesn’t mean much about their general healthfulness. reasonable thing to do. There are however many things which do have advantages where ingesting alcohol is a necessary side effect. I would not want to have to give up fresh bread, nor beer, nor any of a couple of dozen favorite foods where alcoholic beverages are an ingreedient. Considering the vapor pressure and volatility of ethyl alcohol, I rather doubt that any significant fraction of the actual alcohol is still present in ANY cooked item. Though I find it difficult to tolerate even those kind of foods, like things with wine or sherry sauces.
Well, you’re pretty special, in that case. Actually, they did some experiments a few years ago (I can’t remember who "they" is, so you’re welcome to call me on this) that showed that things like coq au vin actually *did* retain some of the alcohol. But then, fresh orange juice is about 1 proof, too… Roger
Response:
This is an article from the AP wire which was sent to me. The points are: 1.) USG wants to more easily tap phones (leaving no paper trail). 2.) USG wants to order phone co’s to install special equipment to enable this. 3.) USG wants phone co’s to pay for installation (or else be fined). 4.) USG will allow phone co’s to pass on charges to subscribers. 5.) This is draft legislation. Contact your Senators & Congressfolks. *** Government’s Wiretap Desires Could Force Higher Phone Bills *** *** By JAMES ROWLEY WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Bush administration wants you to pay a little more for telephone service to make it easier for the FBI or local police to listen in on the conversations of suspected criminals. The Justice Department is circulating a proposal in Congress that would force telephone companies to install state-of-the-art technology to accommodate official wiretaps. And it would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to grant telephone companies rate increases to defray the cost. A copy of the draft legislation was obtained by The Associated Press. Attorney General William P. Barr discussed the proposal last week with Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC, according to congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Justice Department spokesman Paul McNulty refused to comment on the proposal. The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations between two parties on a telephone line. The Justice Department’s draft proposal states that the widespread use of digital transmission, fiber optics and other technologies “make it increasingly difficult for government agencies to implement lawful orders or authorizations to intercept communications in order to enforce the laws and protect the national security.” The FBI has already asked Congress for $26.6 million in its 1993 fiscal year budget to help finance a five-year research effort to help keep pace with the changes in telephone technology. With the new technology that is being installed nationwide, police can no longer go to a telephone switching center and put wiretap equipments on a designated lines. The advent of so-called digital transmission means that conversations are broken into bits of information and sent over phone lines and put back together at the other end of the wire. The bill would give the FCC 180 days to devise rules and standards for telephone companies to give law enforcement agencies access to conversations for court-ordered wiretapping. The attorney general would be empowered to require that part of the rulemaking proceedings would be closed to the public, to protect the security of eavesdropping techniques used by law enforcement. Phone companies would have 180 days to make the necessary changes once the FCC issues the regulations. The bill would prohibit telephone companies and private exchanges from using equipment that doesn’t comply with the new FCC technology standards. It would give the attorney general power to seek court injunctions against companies that violate the regulations and collect civil penalties of $10,000 a day. It also would give the FCC the power to raise telephone rates under its jurisdiction to reimburse carriers. The FCC sets interstate long distance rates and a monthly end-user charge _ currently $2.50 _ that subscribers pay to be connected to the nationwide telephone network. Telephone companies will want to examine the proposal to determine its impact on costs, security of phone lines and the 180-day deadline for implementing the changes, said James Sylvester, director of infrastructure and privacy for Bell Atlantic. Though no cost estimates were made available, Sylvester estimated it could most companies millions of dollars to make the required changes. But rate hikes for individual customers would probably be quite small, he said. Unlike previous proposals floated by the administration, the FBI does not seek electronic “trap doors” to enable decoding of computer encrypted data or voices. It would merely require the assistance of telephone companies to enable its interception of the communications pipeline. Current federal wiretapping laws require telephone companies to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. But “There are truly far-reaching implications in granting the FBI this new authority. Before that step is taken public hearings are clearly required,” said Marc Rotenberg, Washington director of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. The FBI should “make its case why their current procedures are not adequate. I don’t think that’s been established,” he said.
Response:
res I would say, however, that it is a lot MORE unwise to consume a res material that you aren’t even evolved to consume Very dodgy concept. Besides which, any animal which eats fruit is evolved to deal with alcohol since fermentation happens quite naturally. Also many animals will, like people, seek out fremented fruit. res (RUNNING? You live in a world where you can avoid such nasty res physical effort and you RUN?) Me? Never. If nothing else, most of the path between any two places in Edinburgh is vertical 
. It was just an example of dangerous behaviour which came to mind at the time. res I can’t tell the difference between beer, wine, and rum except res for presence/absence of fizz and the amount of "bite" (i.e., does res it sting like a SOB going down?). Hm, obviously American wine is as tastless as American beer… res Considering the vapor pressure and volatility of ethyl alcohol, res I rather doubt that any significant fraction of the actual alcohol is res still present in ANY cooked item. You’d be suprised. This came up in rec.food.cooking a few months ago when someone with a bad reaction to alcohol asked how much remained. Someone else posted actual empirical figures (which I didn’t save unfortunatly) and there is quite a significant alcohol level even in something like a casserole which is cooked for a long while. res So the argument still holds on the level I intended, i.e., the res vast majority of drinkers are originally inducted into the ranks res of alcohol consumption because of the social position of alcohol. Of course the same can be said of bread, milk, meat, potatoes etc. — |<
Response:
[long debate deleted] The people I know who drink fall into one of four categories: 1) Drink because they like the taste. 2) Drink because it’s cool. 3) Drink because it’s a [nonaddictive] habit 4) Drink because they’re addicted (alcoholic). [further observation that (2) dominates]. I’d say that (2) dominates in undergraduates. At least I haven’t run into anyone who thinks its "cool" to drink since my undergraduate days. Among more mature groups, (1) and (3) cover up to 90% of the people who drink. — Stephen Kurtzman
Without trying to play the role of net.god, may I politely suggest you move this to e-mail, since: 1) only 2 of you seem to be participating, 2)the subject has been done here before, 3) much of the debate consists of empirical assertions that no one has the time or energy to verify (88% of all statistics are made up on the spot ) 4)the whole subject is a straw man, since ( as someone pointed out) there is no real neo-prohibitionist movement worth taking seriously. Perhaps public opinions and/or fashion have changed (how many 60s style cocktail parties do you see anymore?) but the chances of any alchohol ban being passed in the US in the near to mid future are nil. Best, Chris
Response:
[...] 2) A fund to recompense victims of murderers (those that drink and then knowingly get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle) [...] you are DUI, let’s hold you responsible. If someone dies from the fact you were DUI, then that is PREMEDITATED MURDER (you know you were drinking, and you know that your ability to drive was impared).
Look, J.M., I agree with you that Pope’s argument is a crock, but — a lawyer you’re not. Drunk driving, no matter HOW you construe it, is *not* first-degree (premeditated) murder. Murder, after all, requires *intent*. And no drunk *intends* to kill people when he/she gets behind the wheel. So it’s not premeditated murder, because it’s neither premeditated nor murder. The only thing that was premeditated was the driving, and the decision to do so was made while impaired. (This is the crux of the matter: once you’re impaired, you don’t have the judgment that a reasonable person has. How much responsibility do you have? A lot, obviously, but just how much is hard to determine.) Moreover, if we *did* raise drunk-driving penalties to draconian levels, we’d have to get rid of the jury system as well — because juries just don’t convict under those circumstances. Roger
Response:
[correct refutation of silly rhapsodic ode to alcohol deleted.] res However, anyone who drinks is demonstrating that they have the res wisdom, if not the intellect, of a clam. This is very impolite. Do you really believe that anyone who drinks alcohol is a fool? Do you do nothing that has an adverse effect on your health? No sweet food? (Any will increase the level of tooth decay somewhat). No outdoor sports (eg running on roads, it increases your risk of being killed by a car, also the amount of poluted air you breath, you could get the excersise by running around your home, making sure you empty the room of things to trip over first of course). That alcohol is an addictive drug with nasty side effects does not mean that to drink alcoholic beverages one must be stupid. Merly that one must believe that the advantages (eg, the stuff does taste damn good) outway the disadvantages for some level of consumption. res Ditto for smokers. Same argument holds. Smoking _anything_ in public however is somewhere between incredibly anti-social and homicidal. res a poison with no benefits, Direct benefits of alcohol are few. It is a muscle relaxent and depressent, so there are circumstances when having a drink is a reasonable thing to do. There are however many things which do have advantages where ingesting alcohol is a necessary side effect. I would not want to have to give up fresh bread, nor beer, nor any of a couple of dozen favorite foods where alcoholic beverages are an ingreedient. res Therefore people drink for the same reason they start smoking: to res fit in, to gain these phantom benefits, to be cool, etc. You really think all the people in, for instance, rec.crafts.brewing are slaving away tweaking their favorite recipe for phantom social benefits and coolness when they could go out and buy something cheaper, stronger and more fashionable at the closest shop? —
Response:
Tobacco kills over 1000 people per day. Demon Rum is no where near that.
Response:
Alcohol does not cause auto accidents. Bad drivers cause auto accidents. Let’s keep individual responisibility in mind for once.
By the way, this reminds me of a bumper sticker I’d like to see: ONLY THE BAD DRUNK DRIVERS GET CAUGHT Please don’t accuse me of promoting drunk driving; this is merely a tasteless joke. (I’m kind of sorry if this offends anyone, I admit this is rather insensitive.) Cheers, —
Response:
My apologies to all those on rec.foods.drink; I made the mistake of not checking the newsgroups on EVERY response, and did not realize that someone had crossposted this between alt.activism and r.f.drink. My responses were not intended for your newsgroup, and I indeed did not realize you were getting them until the protests began to pour in. Sea Wasp /^ ;;; . .. . . * . . . . : . _*_ . . . .. . * . .. ^*^ . . ;;; . . . * : . . . . . .* . . . Interphase Accomplished. Sea Wasp docked, Outring Sector 5.
Response:
…text deleted….
Ho hum. This thread is becoming tedious. Sorry Ryk, but I’m not going to give up having a drink now and then, and if you want to believe I have the wisdom and intellect of a clam, feel free. The taste of drinks is definitely an aquired taste. (along with the taste of alot of other things: coffee, sushi, caviar, broccoli, liver, etc etc). But a tasty glass of wine with my fettucini alfredo, or a couple of beers and some pizza while I watch a football game is perfectly within the bounds of wise behavior according to mine (and most everyone else’s) belief system. You’ll just have to deal with the thought of all of us insane people drinking poison. By the way, I also usually experience a sort of "merriness" from having a drink or two. That alcohol is an addictive drug with nasty side effects does not mean that to drink alcoholic beverages one must be stupid. Merly that one must believe that the advantages (eg, the stuff does taste damn good) outway the disadvantages for some level of consumption. I’d still class it as stupid, just like mountain climbing. Okay, so it’s fun and you get a kick. It’s still stupid to trust your life to one rope and a little metal pin while swinging 500 feet above hard sharp stone. (And I did used to do free climbing, so I admit to even greater stupidity.) So I guess it’s better never to come out of the womb in the first place. You might encounter something dangerous or harmful, which would make you stupid. I’m staying at home in bed all the time from now on. Actually, to me anything with alcohol content above 1% tastes exactly like what it is: a product of controlled rot. I can’t tell the difference between beer, wine, and rum except for presence/absence of fizz and the amount of "bite" (i.e., does it sting like a SOB going down?). No one cares about your perceptions of alcohol, anymore that you care to hear why many people (like me) enjoy the taste of certain alcoholic beverages. reasonable thing to do. There are however many things which do have advantages where ingesting alcohol is a necessary side effect. I would not want to have to give up fresh bread, nor beer, nor any of a couple of dozen favorite foods where alcoholic beverages are an ingreedient. Considering the vapor pressure and volatility of ethyl alcohol, I rather doubt that any significant fraction of the actual alcohol is still present in ANY cooked item. Though I find it difficult to tolerate even those kind of foods, like things with wine or sherry sauces. This is true, as far as cooking goes, I don’t think the actual alcohol adds anything to the taste; it’s the other components of the beverage in question. I always add about 3/4 of a beer when I make a pot of chili, and my roomate always uses wine or sherry when he makes certain dishes. We like the taste. Now back to your regularly scheduled program… — Jock Cooper uunet!hammer!jockc
Response:
(Stephen Kurtzman) writes: writes: The drinker causes the accidents BY ingesting alcohol and then demonstrating that not only is he so idiotic that he will deliberately ingest a poison with no benefits, but he will then try to operate a complex piece of equipment at high speed while under the influence of that poison. There is evidence from a growing number of medical studies that indicate moderate consumption is more healthful than abstention. Your positions are weak since you are supporting them by false information.
Please provide references to the studies you cite. There was one study done that I know of that showed low to moderate levels of wine may have been responsible for a lower incidence of heart and intestinal ailments. The study was questioned sine there were almost no controls on the "control" group and it was determined that some members of the control group were in "high tension" positions, while most members of the subject group were not. This is sometimes referred to as stacking the deck. But what else can one expect when the financing for the study was provided by the Beer and Wine Institute. See above. You drink and drive, YOU pay the penalty… but if your drinking causes you to crash into ME, I’m gonna want more than you in a hospital. It doesn’t matter what you want so much as what a just penalty is for the crime. If you are the victim of a crime, then you are probably the
wrong person to determine the penalty meted out to the criminal. I
read the original poster’s appeal to individual responsibility to include paying for one’s crimes.
So much for victims rights. I don’t think there ARE social and societal benefits of alcohol that couldn’t be served equally well by fruit juices. (UNfermented, of course). All you have to do to get this accepted is to change thousands of years of tradition and change the pharmacological effects of unfermented fruit juice. Alcohol used in moderation has beneficial effects on mood which facilitate social interaction.
Numerous studies done in local college for the various psychology departments have put this falicy to rest. When "mixed" drinks were served at party A there was an increase in "social interaction" described in many studies as the lowering of inhibitional barriers. When these mixed drinks contained no alcohol the same effects were found. I quote a study performed by Western Conn. State College in 1979 authored by myself, five other team members and my professor Dr. Roth. The study used the same people in two parties two weeks apart. The first party used the depressant, the second did not. The findings of the six member research team was published by Dr. Roth in 1979 (sorry, I don’t remember the publication). I took the posting as serious. Your arguments, which blend emotion and misinformation, demonstrate why it is necessary to have a more reasoned approach to social issues concerning alcohol.
Your misinformation and disemination of same makes me wonder what type of people we are educating these days. Your basic feeling that using an addictive drug in small amounts is okay is very questionable. If the drug discussed was changed from alcohol to speed, would it still be okay to use in small amounts? How about steroids? The fact that society has said that this addictive drug is acceptable doesn’t make its use and abuse acceptable when others have to pay the costs in lost loved ones, higher medical and insurance bills, higher prices in products due to lost productivity from the use and abuse of this depressant. The cost is too high. While I don’t want to see it banned, I do want to see it taxed to the highest degree possible, and see that money used to offset the costs associated to the use and abuse of this substance. jmi
Response:
This used to be a great group with pleasant people until you two came along. Will you please do this somewhere else.
Actually, the really unpleasant comments have come from those with nothing *but* unpleasant comments to make. And, frankly, I think there *is* a place for the discussion of legal and ethical issues regarding drinking. We get all kinds of requests for knockout drinks, grain punch, drinking games, and other *really* dangerous/stupid things, and nobody complains. We also talk about homebrew; and nobody ever mentions the fact that this sort of thing was legalized only in our lifetimes — less than 20 years ago, if memory serves. So why *not* a discussion of issues like legality, safety, and How to drink? Like it or not, alcohol abuse is the largest srug problem we have, and pretending it has nothing to do with the discussion of drink in general is delusion. Roger
Response:
This used to be a great group with pleasant people until you two came along. Will you please do this somewhere else. Reid Kaplan
I concur. MOve on to rec.alt.childish.intellectual.masturbation. Grant Lenahan so many people have been helpful, generous with knowledge, adn in fact, have some to be generous with.
Response:
This used to be a great group with pleasant people until you two came along. Will you please do this somewhere else. Reid Kaplan
Response:
Actually, to me anything with alcohol content above 1% tastes exactly like what it is: a product of controlled rot. I can’t tell the difference between beer, wine, and rum except for presence/absence of fizz and the amount of "bite" (i.e., does it sting like a SOB going down?).
Then what are you doing in this newsgroup? We are no more interested in prohibition arguments than subscribers to soc.motss are interested in why you might find homosexuality offensive. If you don’t like to drink, then FUCK OFF. We really don’t care to hear about it. Keep it in alt.activism, whatever the hell that is. –Starcap’n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}–^
Response:
res However, anyone who drinks is demonstrating that they have the res wisdom, if not the intellect, of a clam. This is very impolite. Do you really believe that anyone who drinks alcohol is a fool? Do you do nothing that has an adverse effect on your health? No sweet food? (Any will increase the level of tooth decay somewhat). No outdoor sports (eg running on roads, it increases your risk of being killed by a car, also the amount of poluted air you breath, you could get the excersise by running around your home, making sure you empty the room of things to trip over first of course).
Impolite… perhaps. True, though. And yes, I do a few things that are in that category (and I won’t argue that, for example, my eating more calories than are good for me is stupid). I would say, however, that it is a lot MORE unwise to consume a material that you aren’t even evolved to consume (as opposed to sugar and meats, for example, which I may well eat too much of but which are, at least, normal parts of an omnivore’s diet) and which is, in actuality, a poison. (RUNNING? You live in a world where you can avoid such nasty physical effort and you RUN?) That alcohol is an addictive drug with nasty side effects does not mean that to drink alcoholic beverages one must be stupid. Merly that one must believe that the advantages (eg, the stuff does taste damn good) outway the disadvantages for some level of consumption.
I’d still class it as stupid, just like mountain climbing. Okay, so it’s fun and you get a kick. It’s still stupid to trust your life to one rope and a little metal pin while swinging 500 feet above hard sharp stone. (And I did used to do free climbing, so I admit to even greater stupidity.) Actually, to me anything with alcohol content above 1% tastes exactly like what it is: a product of controlled rot. I can’t tell the difference between beer, wine, and rum except for presence/absence of fizz and the amount of "bite" (i.e., does it sting like a SOB going down?). res Ditto for smokers. Same argument holds. Smoking _anything_ in public however is somewhere between incredibly anti-social and homicidal.
Or suicidal if, say, you’re doing it around someone like me who’s violently allergic to it (and interested in continuing his own ability to breathe…). reasonable thing to do. There are however many things which do have advantages where ingesting alcohol is a necessary side effect. I would not want to have to give up fresh bread, nor beer, nor any of a couple of dozen favorite foods where alcoholic beverages are an ingreedient.
Considering the vapor pressure and volatility of ethyl alcohol, I rather doubt that any significant fraction of the actual alcohol is still present in ANY cooked item. Though I find it difficult to tolerate even those kind of foods, like things with wine or sherry sauces. res Therefore people drink for the same reason they start smoking: to res fit in, to gain these phantom benefits, to be cool, etc. You really think all the people in, for instance, rec.crafts.brewing are slaving away tweaking their favorite recipe for phantom social benefits and coolness when they could go out and buy something cheaper, stronger and more fashionable at the closest shop?
I think if you check the prior posts, you’ll see that the argument dealt with majorities. Sure, there are hobbyist types who are doing this for the sheer enjoyment of the art, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that homebrewers account for more than a miniscule number of the beer drinkers in this country, and even less would they be a significant fraction of the total alcohol industry. Note, I don’t say that a large fraction of the beer-drinking population has never TRIED homebrew; just that only a very small fraction gets MOST of its intake from anything other than large commercial suppliers. So the argument still holds on the level I intended, i.e., the vast majority of drinkers are originally inducted into the ranks of alcohol consumption because of the social position of alcohol. Sea Wasp /^ ;;;
Response:
sk Funny as it may seem, there is no contradiction here. Alcohol, when sk used in moderation can be accurately described by the second paragraph sk above. When used in excess, the paragraph immediately above is the sk more accurate. Not so, there is no level of alcohol consumption which stimulates the intelect. There are levels where the supression of inhibitions may outweigh the supression of everything else so people _think_ they are being stimulated. — |<
Response:
(Stephen Kurtzman) writes: writes: They should be at least as high as for deliberate malice. A man who, because he was driving drunk, kills a person, should be up for Murder One because a deliberate choice of his led to another person’s death.
That would be a change in the definition of first-degree murder. The current definition requires that a the murder have been committed with reasoned intent. You can advocate strong penalties without muddying the definition of first-degree murder. Studies show that a single drink is enough to begin the impairment of judgement, reflexes, and attention. How much more MODERATE do you mean? Hardly worth all this fuss if all you do is drink half a can of beer once a week.
Moderation is often defined as one or two drinks per day. The fuss is about people who want to take the option away from the 90% of the drinking population who will not abuse alcohol. [Note: approx. 66% of the population drinks.] On the other hand, moderation is a concept in drinking alcoholic beverages and there is increasing evidence from scientific studies that shows the moderate consumption of wine is beneficial to health. Beneficial to SOME aspects of health. Add in the almost instant impairment of the senses, et al, and you have to wonder.
Funny, you talk about instant impairment and then you also talk about: Most of the people I have seen drinking (and I’ve seen quite a few) exhibited one of the following three patterns: 1) No noticeable change in behavior at all 2) Slight change that I can best associate with the social interaction derived from the serving and sharing of the beverage — but no different than the similar change I’ve seen from offering and sharing soda or fruit juice 3) Extreme changes [due to extreme consumption].
It is interesting that this instant impairment from one drink results in your cases 1) and 2), which result in no change distinguishable from drinking orange juice with a friend. It appears that you hold conflicting opinions concerning alcohol consumption. It is true that some people drink for bad reasons. But certainly not all. Your statements betray the way you stereotype people who drink. The people I know who drink fall into one of four categories: 1) Drink because they like the taste. 2) Drink because it’s cool. 3) Drink because it’s a [nonaddictive] habit 4) Drink because they’re addicted (alcoholic). [further observation that (2) dominates].
I’d say that (2) dominates in undergraduates. At least I haven’t run into anyone who thinks its "cool" to drink since my undergraduate days. Among more mature groups, (1) and (3) cover up to 90% of the people who drink. — Stephen Kurtzman | "where desire writhed there stands a stone; | – Maggie Roche
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: writes: They should be at least as high as for deliberate malice. A man who, because he was driving drunk, kills a person, should be up for Murder One because a deliberate choice of his led to another person’s death. That would be a change in the definition of first-degree murder. The current definition requires that a the murder have been committed with reasoned intent. You can advocate strong penalties without muddying the definition of first-degree murder.
Agreed. It would also make conviction impossible unless we simultaneously got rid of the jury system. Making consequences dire is really of limited use when one is trying to deter behavior by people who are not thinking of consequences very hard. Even if the penalty were only one year in jail, that would deter just about anyone who thinks of the consequences of having an accident while drunk — and even the threat of hanging from a lamppost won’t deter those who don’t associate threatened consequences with their actions. And, yes, there are such people. Millions and millions of them. Studies show that a single drink is enough to begin the impairment of judgement, reflexes, and attention. How much more MODERATE do you mean? Hardly worth all this fuss if all you do is drink half a can of beer once a week. Moderation is often defined as one or two drinks per day. The fuss is about people who want to take the option away from the 90% of the drinking population who will not abuse alcohol. [Note: approx. 66% of the population drinks.]
How’s that again? 90% will not abuse alcohol? Seems to me that about 10% of drinkers are alcoholics, and many more abuse alcohol infrequently. With as many as 40% of college students abusing alcohol during their college days, the 10% figure is questionable. (Unless there’s something in the use of the future tense that I’m missing.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On the other hand, moderation is a concept in drinking alcoholic beverages and there is increasing evidence from scientific studies that shows the moderate consumption of wine is beneficial to health. Beneficial to SOME aspects of health. Add in the almost instant impairment of the senses, et al, and you have to wonder. Funny, you talk about instant impairment and then you also talk about: Most of the people I have seen drinking (and I’ve seen quite a few) exhibited one of the following three patterns: 1) No noticeable change in behavior at all 2) Slight change that I can best associate with the social interaction derived from the serving and sharing of the beverage — but no different than the similar change I’ve seen from offering and sharing soda or fruit juice 3) Extreme changes [due to extreme consumption]. It is interesting that this instant impairment from one drink results in your cases 1) and 2), which result in no change distinguishable from drinking orange juice with a friend. It appears that you hold conflicting opinions concerning alcohol consumption.
Sorry, Steven, but he’s talking about change in SENSES, not change in behavior. There can indeed be some motor impairment, and no (or little) observable change in behavior. There’s nothing conflicting here at all. (On the other hand, I suspect we shold add a few levels between "slight" and "extreme.") Or, if you will, the changes may not become visible until some kind of task is to be performed, say, writing or driving. It is true that some people drink for bad reasons. But certainly not all. Your statements betray the way you stereotype people who drink. The people I know who drink fall into one of four categories: 1) Drink because they like the taste. 2) Drink because it’s cool. 3) Drink because it’s a [nonaddictive] habit 4) Drink because they’re addicted (alcoholic). [further observation that (2) dominates]. I’d say that (2) dominates in undergraduates. At least I haven’t run into anyone who thinks its "cool" to drink since my undergraduate days. Among more mature groups, (1) and (3) cover up to 90% of the people who drink.
a) Whether undergraduates drink because it’s cool, or because there’s social pressure, or because of any number of other reasons, they *do* drink, and *do* drink abusively, at alarming rates. Alcohol abuse on college campuses is way up in the last ten years or so (partly atributable to the 21 drinking age, I suspect, along with the unfashionability of pot, etc.). The levels of abuse are disturbingly high. b) 3 and 4 are problematic in terms of definition. What is this "nonadictive habit"? Are we talking about people who have gotten into the routine of having a beer before dinner? Or are we talking about alcoholics who are not (yet) physically addicted? Remember that the definition of alcoholism includes many people who have no physical addiction symptoms (e.g., physical symptoms upon withdrawal, such as d.t.’s); that alcoholism is definied primarily in tems of behavior. c) In that light, note that the four groups above leave out those who drink because they feel that alcohol is necessary for social interaction. Read what alcoholics have written: if you’d like to efine this as "feeling cool," then there are millions of post-college people out there who drink because it makes them feel cool. Roger
Response:
writes: Just legalize them all, tax the bejesus out of them (though not enough to make the price anywhere near it was when the stuff was illegal) and everyone (except pushers, etc.) is happy. One other group will be unhappy. Those of us who feel the whole concept of a sin tax is tantamount to fining people for legal behavior.
So what is income tax? Fining people for making money? I personally feel that ALL taxation is theft. But, since it seems unlikely to the point of impossibility to get rid of taxes, I’d rather that things were taxed at the purchase-of-luxuries level (where the person can CHOOSE whether or not to purchase the thing involved) than at the income level (where the only choice is to either have income or not). Oh, and make sure the penalty for causing damage while under the influence of any such material is severe. VERY severe. No. Make sure the penalty for causing damage while under the influence of any such material is just (i.e. appropriately severe and not driven by revenge). [Note this should be true for any crime.]
In evolution of an intelligent species, the stupider die. Penalties for deliberate stupidity should be high. They should be at least as high as for deliberate malice. A man who, because he was driving drunk, kills a person, should be up for Murder One because a deliberate choice of his led to another person’s death. Alcoholic beverages excite the senses, stimulate the intellect, enhance the enjoyment of food, and provide a complement to the social life of millions of adult Americans. Alcohol dulls the senses, fuzzes the intellect, numbs the tastebuds, and lowers inhibitions so people can’t realize that they are not having anywhere near as much fun as they could be otherwise. Alcohol is a poison, a depressant, and is highly destructive over time. Funny as it may seem, there is no contradiction here. Alcohol, when used in moderation can be accurately described by the second paragraph above. When used in excess, the paragraph immediately above is the more accurate.
Studies show that a single drink is enough to begin the impairment of judgement, reflexes, and attention. How much more MODERATE do you mean? Hardly worth all this fuss if all you do is drink half a can of beer once a week. The above mention of smoking is irrelevant as smoking and consuming alcoholic beverages fundamentally different. There is no concept of moderate tobacco use and there is no known benefit from the light consumption of tobacco smoke. On the other hand, moderation is a concept in drinking alcoholic beverages and there is increasing evidence from scientific studies that shows the moderate consumption of wine is beneficial to health.
Beneficial to SOME aspects of health. Add in the almost instant impairment of the senses, et al, and you have to wonder. I’d like to see more studies done examining other areas of health and seeing if it’s all beneficial. Also, of course, there has to be more stringent control of the groups involved in the studies to make sure that there isn’t an unnoticed side correlation with something else that might have to do with the health of the people involved (off the top of my head, for instance, it might be that moderate drinkers, as a group, have different eating habits, or they belong to a slightly higher socioeconomic group, etc.) Oddly enough, you above advocate punitive taxes on alcohol. Just what is your position?
See above. While I believe that taxation is theft, I also recognize that barring a major miracle I am going to have to live with the legalized thieves in ANY country. Given that, I’d rather tax things that the individual can choose to buy or NOT buy, as the case may be. Other forms of taxation, such as income tax, deprive me of the right to decide. All you have to do to get this accepted is to change thousands of years of tradition and change the pharmacological effects of unfermented fruit juice. Alcohol used in moderation has beneficial effects on mood which facilitate social interaction.
Really? Has anyone done controlled studies on this? I suspect that the effects on mood are either due to expectations (in the MODERATE doses you speak of, i.e., not drunk) or just lowering of inhibitions — the latter being, at best, a questionable benefit, since many inhibitions are part of the grease that lubricates social relations. Most of the people I have seen drinking (and I’ve seen quite a few) exhibited one of the following three patterns: 1) No noticeable change in behavior at all 2) Slight change that I can best associate with the social interaction derived from the serving and sharing of the beverage — but no different than the similar change I’ve seen from offering and sharing soda or fruit juice 3) Extreme changes (beginning with increased laughter over things normally not considered funny, progressing to other behaviors associated classically with drunkenness) which I cannot characterize as "beneficial" at all. "Stupid" is the term that usually leaps to mind upon seeing a drunk person — or, depending on what kind of drunk they are, "dangerous" might be more to the point. But this is, of course, at the point beyond what I assume you mean by "moderate" use. Under THAT category, only numbers 1 and 2 above seem to apply. This is your opinion. It is true that some people drink for bad reasons. But certainly not all. Your statements betray the way you stereotype people who drink.
The people I know who drink fall into one of four categories: 1) Drink because they like the taste. That’s cool with me — I like the taste of cran-raspberry myself. Both of us have to pay extra for the privilege of drinking that stuff rather than water. 2) Drink because it’s cool. Also cool with me, as long as their "cool" doesn’t wake up my neighborhood or crash into my car. 3) Drink because it’s a habit — they have always had a beer/martini whatever at (x) time or event, so they still do. Seems a stupid habit to me, but everyone has them. 4) Drink because they’re addicted (alcoholic). Best that I can judge, I’d say that (2) dominates, with a lot of crossover into categories 1 and 3. Sea Wasp . .. . . * . . . . : . _*_ . . . .. . * . .. ^*^ . . ;;; . . . * : . . . . . .* . . . Interphase Accomplished. Sea Wasp docked, Outring Sector 5.
Response:
they were reality. In this essay he creates his own fantasies… read on… On the rise is a strange coalition of moralists, MADD-mother types, self-styled social welfare advocates, NIMBY-oriented local community activists, tax-hungry governments, misguided liberals, and health freaks. Their collected purpose: regulate, tax, constrain, and ultimately ban altogether an important part of our social culture: alcoholic beverages.
MADD believes this? SADD believes this? I think not. While there are some in the organizations that do want to see the taxs raised, they want all the monies raised from the taxs to go to three basic programs as well as special funds that lower the cost of health care for those who are currently paying for the inequities of the current system. The three basic plans that are generally called for are: 1) A designated driver program that provides places which serve alcoholic beverages an incentive to make sure one person in the party isn’t driving drunk. 2) A fund to recompense victims of murderers (those that drink and then knowingly get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle) 3) A free and open treatment program for those that wish to stop abusing substances. Alcoholic beverages excite the senses,
Really, which ones? Actually, alcohol dulls the senses. It is s depressant. stimulate the intellect,
Depressants stimulate the intellect? Interesting notion. Could you please provide a chemical model breakdown that shows what centers of the CNS are enhanced by alcohol consumption. In fact, please provide any reference material or literature of any tests that have been done that support this claim. enhance the enjoyment of food,
I don’t believe it. Something partially accurate! Actually, they tend to have a clensing effect on the pallet if used in moderate amounts. It also matters on what is consumed. Beer and most hard liquors do not have this effect. Some (actually _most_) wines do have *some* of this effect. and provide a complement to the social life of millions of adult Americans.
Aha! Crack does the same thing you know. Listen, a DRUG is a DRUG. Alcohol is an addictive (physically and mentally) DRUG. If social or RECREATIONAL DRUG use is okay with you, then why stop with alcohol? How about crack? cocain? heroin? I’m not saying that alcohol is heroin, but I’m asking you why we should support one habit forming depressant drug and not provide some level of support to all the others? In what way is alcohol better than these other RECREATIONAL DRUGS? In what ways is it worse? Should we also make nitrous oxide available? How about paraphinalia? Wrapping papers, bongs, mirror and razzorblade combos sitting right next to beer steins and corkscrews. A finely crafted wine or ale is a work of art, the truly appreciated product of the hard-working craftsman. The beverage industry provides employment to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans, and is a major and still-healthy component of a flagging economy.
Let’s reword the above, just a tad… A finely crafted designer drug or crack is a work of art, the truly appreciated product of the hard-working craftsman. The drug industry provides employment to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans, and is a major and still-healthy component of a flagging economy. Gee, that has a nice ring to it. As to proff that it is still healthy, see the latest figures on the amount of recreational drugs confiscated and the estimated amounts missed. Then realize that these drugs are not currently taxed, and therfore provide no income to the governement… sounds like prohibition to me… and we both agree that that is wrong, so let’s allow all recreational drugs to be sold! This will kepp america strong! All of the social value these beverages add to our lives would be destroyed if the anti-alcohol agenda succeeds. In the spirit of "Know Thine Enemy", let’s examine and pick apart the false rhetoric of the neo-NIMBY-prohibitionists.
Gee, you haven’t lost any family in an auto accident where the major cause of it was alcohol being used/abused by the driver of the OTHER car. Think for a moment how you would feel if your parents were driving down the road, minding their own business when come college kids plow into them at 60+ mph. The kids all survive, your parents die. The kids all get off with "slaps on the wrist" (that is about what our current system of justice provides as long as you can afford an attorney who is even partially competant). Do you like that scenerio? It is the one played out in the courtrooms of America everyday. If the kids were using any other recreational drug, they would get the book thrown at them, but killing people when you drink and drive is okay. "Alcohol is the causitive factor of 60% of all auto accidents" Like most statistics, this one is dummied up. The 60% number includes all accidents in which either driver has a given blood alcohol content, even if the other driver is at fault. Further, no effort is made to find out if the driver was actually impaired by alcohol: many are not at illegal blood concentrations. Also, no effort is made to determine the true cause of the accidents and link this to alcohol-imparied behavior. In short, a meaningless statistic. Alcohol does not cause auto accidents. Bad drivers cause auto accidents. Let’s keep individual responisibility in mind for once.
That’s cute. Haven’t you ever watched those tests that they do. The ones that SHOW the effect that driving under the influence has? The ones where a "reporter" get’s up to .1 BAL and can’t make it around the same cones he could drive around before. Go to your local police department and have them administer the same test to you. Boy will you be surprised. You’ll be left looking at a bunch of knocked over cones saying… "I coulda sworn I drove better when I was on a buzz." You say "Let’s keep individual responisibility in mind for once." I agree. If you are DUI, let’s hold you responsible. If someone dies from the fact you were DUI, then that is PREMEDITATED MURDER (you know you were drinking, and you know that your ability to drive was impared). If you just get caught, hey, you lose your license. Remember, driving is a priveldge, not a right! Is that enough personal responsibility for you? "The true societal cost of alcohol justifies high rates of taxation" A clever lie. There may be some societal costs to alcohol use — alcoholism treatment, liver disease treatment, and the small percentage of accidents that are truly alcohol caused. However, these costs are far outweighed by the cultural and societal benefits of alcohol — hence, the public is willing (grudgingly) to pony up a high tax to preserve these benefits.
Please, share with us the benefits of taking a depressant on a regular basis. I assume from your "address" that you are a student (the .edu). Do you study better and retain information better when you are intoxicated? If so, please see the dean, I’m sure the science department would love to use you in a series of experiments that show the "cultural and societal benefits of alcohol". Further, if we accept the premise that alcohol causes physical disease, this does not mean that this cause-and-effect relationship costs the public money. The cost of disease treatment must be balanced against the much larger savings realized from not having to care for the disease victims in their old age.
Ciggerette/tobacco companies weren’t foolish enough to try that argument. I can see them trying. Hey, cancer from tobacco product is good for society as it cust down on the number of elderly. Haaa Haaa Haaa….. For those reasons, second-hand smoke is also good for society, as is driving recklessly at high speeds and motercycling without any protection. In fact, anything that you can do to end your life, or the life of someone else earlier is _very_ beneficial to society, and should be supported at all costs! Great agrument. I bet you on the debating team too. "The alcohol industry is immensely profitable, soaking the public and running up huge profits" Like any industry, the beverage industry has its profitable segments. But many segments, including small retailers, most wineries, smaller brewers and microbrewers, and importers/wholesalers of premium products, are stuggling to stay alive under the burden of regulation and inequitably high taxes. (Whenever an alcohol tax is inceased, it results in an onerous one-time "floor tax" on the retailers and wholesalers.)
Let me see if I understand this… Shennley (sp?) cost 26 cents to make to actual alcoholic beverage (1 qt). In the product this is the lowest cost item! The bottle costs more then the contents! The idea that these companies are "stuggling to stay alive" and that I have some duty to help them manufacture and despense recreational drugs is humorous at best. This ame logic says that I should be despensing bullets so the gun manufactures don’t have to struggle to stay alive. Hey, maybe we could even give away needles, crack pipes and other incentives to increase the use of recreational drugs. In fact, I am sure we can show that crack smoke increases the desire to drink alcohol. Boy, that would be a vboon to the industry. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Just as is the case for tobacco, alcohol is bad for your health" Although there are specific cause and effect relationships for some diseases, overall no adverse health impact has been demonstrated. In some cases, consumption of certain products such as red wine have been associated with lowered disease risk, and moderate drinkers are on average
… read more »
Response:
writes: Their collected purpose: regulate, tax, constrain, and ultimately ban altogether an important part of our social culture: alcoholic beverages. Just legalize them all, tax the bejesus out of them (though not enough to make the price anywhere near it was when the stuff was illegal) and everyone (except pushers, etc.) is happy.
One other group will be unhappy. Those of us who feel the whole concept of a sin tax is tantamount to fining people for legal behavior. Oh, and make sure the penalty for causing damage while under the influence of any such material is severe. VERY severe.
No. Make sure the penalty for causing damage while under the influence of any such material is just (i.e. appropriately severe and not driven by revenge). [Note this should be true for any crime.] Alcoholic beverages excite the senses, stimulate the intellect, enhance the enjoyment of food, and provide a complement to the social life of millions of adult Americans. Alcohol dulls the senses, fuzzes the intellect, numbs the tastebuds, and lowers inhibitions so people can’t realize that they are not having anywhere near as much fun as they could be otherwise. Alcohol is a poison, a depressant, and is highly destructive over time.
Funny as it may seem, there is no contradiction here. Alcohol, when used in moderation can be accurately described by the second paragraph above. When used in excess, the paragraph immediately above is the more accurate. I do NOT, repeat, do NOT advocate outlawing it. However, anyone who drinks is demonstrating that they have the wisdom, if not the intellect, of a clam. Ditto for smokers. One does not try running a racecar on dirty oil and gas; why do the equivalent to yourself?
Anyone who fails to make the distinction between the use and the abuse of alcohol shows that they have the reasoning ability of a clam. The above mention of smoking is irrelevant as smoking and consuming alcoholic beverages fundamentally different. There is no concept of moderate tobacco use and there is no known benefit from the light consumption of tobacco smoke. On the other hand, moderation is a concept in drinking alcoholic beverages and there is increasing evidence from scientific studies that shows the moderate consumption of wine is beneficial to health. The drinker causes the accidents BY ingesting alcohol and then demonstrating that not only is he so idiotic that he will deliberately ingest a poison with no benefits, but he will then try to operate a complex piece of equipment at high speed while under the influence of that poison.
There is evidence from a growing number of medical studies that indicate moderate consumption is more healthful than abstention. Your positions are weak since you are supporting them by false information. Let’s keep individual responisibility in mind for once. See above. You drink and drive, YOU pay the penalty… but if your drinking causes you to crash into ME, I’m gonna want more than you in a hospital.
It doesn’t matter what you want so much as what a just penalty is for the crime. If you are the victim of a crime, then you are probably the wrong person to determine the penalty meted out to the criminal. I read the original poster’s appeal to individual responsibility to include paying for one’s crimes. Here I agree; taxation can NEVER be truly justified. Unfortunately, it is here to stay since no large country is willing to try to finance itself without taxation.
Oddly enough, you above advocate punitive taxes on alcohol. Just what is your position? I don’t think there ARE social and societal benefits of alcohol that couldn’t be served equally well by fruit juices. (UNfermented, of course).
All you have to do to get this accepted is to change thousands of years of tradition and change the pharmacological effects of unfermented fruit juice. Alcohol used in moderation has beneficial effects on mood which facilitate social interaction. Except, obviously, that our societal consciousness equates alcohol with all these marvelous social things: wine with high society and wealth, etc., beer with parties, good times, and sex, and strong drink with strong, tough images. Therefore people drink for the same reason they start smoking: to fit in, to gain these phantom benefits, to be cool, etc.
This is your opinion. It is true that some people drink for bad reasons. But certainly not all. Your statements betray the way you stereotype people who drink. Note: Due to some of the tone of the original posting, I got the feeling it was, at least partially, a gentle sort of joke. I chose to reply seriously simply to make sure no one took all those points at face value.
I took the posting as serious. Your arguments, which blend emotion and misinformation, demonstrate why it is necessary to have a more reasoned approach to social issues concerning alcohol. — Stephen Kurtzman | "where desire writhed there stands a stone; | – Maggie Roche
Response:
and health freaks. Their collected purpose: regulate, tax, constrain, and ultimately ban altogether an important part of our social culture: alcoholic beverages.
The ones who intend to ultimately BAN the stuff are fools, like the ones who think they can eventually win this War on Drugs by passing more laws against it. Just legalize them all, tax the bejesus out of them (though not enough to make the price anywhere near it was when the stuff was illegal) and everyone (except pushers, etc.) is happy. Oh, and make sure the penalty for causing damage while under the influence of any such material is severe. VERY severe. Alcoholic beverages excite the senses, stimulate the intellect, enhance the enjoyment of food, and provide a complement to the social life of millions of adult Americans. A finely crafted wine or ale is a work of art, the truly appreciated product of the hard-working craftsman. The beverage industry provides employment to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans, and is a major and still-healthy component of a flagging economy.
Alcohol dulls the senses, fuzzes the intellect, numbs the tastebuds, and lowers inhibitions so people can’t realize that they are not having anywhere near as much fun as they could be otherwise. Alcohol is a poison, a depressant, and is highly destructive over time. I do NOT, repeat, do NOT advocate outlawing it. However, anyone who drinks is demonstrating that they have the wisdom, if not the intellect, of a clam. Ditto for smokers. One does not try running a racecar on dirty oil and gas; why do the equivalent to yourself? Like most statistics, this one is dummied up. The 60% number includes all accidents in which either driver has a given blood alcohol content, even if the other driver is at fault. Further, no effort is made to find out if the driver was actually impaired by alcohol: many are not at illegal blood concentrations. Also, no effort is made to determine the true cause of the accidents and link this to alcohol-imparied behavior. In short, a meaningless statistic.
Studies clearly show (and you can prove to yourself if you doubt it) that even at levels far below the legal limit alcohol can strongly impair judgement, reaction time, and alertness. Don’t be fooled — while some of those accidents WERE caused by sober people, many of them could have been avoided if the OTHER driver were not under the influence and thus unable to react to a threat in time. Alcohol destroys the ability to properly drive defensively. Alcohol does not cause auto accidents.
No. Having someone under the influence of alcohol behind the wheel of a moving vehicle causes accidents. The drinker causes the accidents BY ingesting alcohol and then demonstrating that not only is he so idiotic that he will deliberately ingest a poison with no benefits, but he will then try to operate a complex piece of equipment at high speed while under the influence of that poison. Bad drivers cause auto accidents. Let’s keep individual responisibility in mind for once.
See above. You drink and drive, YOU pay the penalty… but if your drinking causes you to crash into ME, I’m gonna want more than you in a hospital. "The true societal cost of alcohol justifies high rates of taxation" A clever lie.
Here I agree; taxation can NEVER be truly justified. Unfortunately, it is here to stay since no large country is willing to try to finance itself without taxation. Nor can "societal cost" be the only factor influencing legislation. That kind of logic leads to Big Brother. There may be some societal costs to alcohol use — alcoholism treatment, liver disease treatment, and the small percentage of accidents that are truly alcohol caused. However, these costs are far outweighed by the cultural and societal benefits of alcohol — hence, the public is willing (grudgingly) to pony up a high tax to preserve these benefits.
I don’t think there ARE social and societal benefits of alcohol that couldn’t be served equally well by fruit juices. (UNfermented, of course). Except, obviously, that our societal consciousness equates alcohol with all these marvelous social things: wine with high society and wealth, etc., beer with parties, good times, and sex, and strong drink with strong, tough images. Therefore people drink for the same reason they start smoking: to fit in, to gain these phantom benefits, to be cool, etc. "The alcohol industry is immensely profitable, soaking the public and running up huge profits"
Never a justification. In this case, if the suckers want to pay me to kill themselves, that’s just fine with me. Just make sure that I won’t get hit by any of the drunken partygoers. To limit the current level of drunk driving — if one views this as a problem — one should advocate widespread mass transit that runs past closing time, plus a bar or two in every neighborhood.
Lots of people don’t like to use mass transit. And even less will they remember to use it when their judgement is impaired. Note: Due to some of the tone of the original posting, I got the feeling it was, at least partially, a gentle sort of joke. I chose to reply seriously simply to make sure no one took all those points at face value. Sea Wasp . .. . . * . . . . : . _*_ . . . .. . * . .. ^*^ . . ;;; . . . * : . . . . . .* . . . Interphase Accomplished. Sea Wasp docked, Outring Sector 5.
Response:
The United States has the dubious distinction of being the only first-world country ever to attempt a total ban on alcoholic beverages. The "noble experiment" of the early twentieth century failed, of course, but was the lesson learned? On the rise is a strange coalition of moralists, MADD-mother types, self-styled social welfare advocates, NIMBY-oriented local community activists, tax-hungry governments, misguided liberals, and health freaks. Their collected purpose: regulate, tax, constrain, and ultimately ban altogether an important part of our social culture: alcoholic beverages. Alcoholic beverages excite the senses, stimulate the intellect, enhance the enjoyment of food, and provide a complement to the social life of millions of adult Americans. A finely crafted wine or ale is a work of art, the truly appreciated product of the hard-working craftsman. The beverage industry provides employment to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans, and is a major and still-healthy component of a flagging economy. All of the social value these beverages add to our lives would be destroyed if the anti-alcohol agenda succeeds. In the spirit of "Know Thine Enemy", let’s examine and pick apart the false rhetoric of the neo-NIMBY-prohibitionists. "Alcohol is the causitive factor of 60% of all auto accidents" Like most statistics, this one is dummied up. The 60% number includes all accidents in which either driver has a given blood alcohol content, even if the other driver is at fault. Further, no effort is made to find out if the driver was actually impaired by alcohol: many are not at illegal blood concentrations. Also, no effort is made to determine the true cause of the accidents and link this to alcohol-imparied behavior. In short, a meaningless statistic. Alcohol does not cause auto accidents. Bad drivers cause auto accidents. Let’s keep individual responisibility in mind for once. "The true societal cost of alcohol justifies high rates of taxation" A clever lie. There may be some societal costs to alcohol use — alcoholism treatment, liver disease treatment, and the small percentage of accidents that are truly alcohol caused. However, these costs are far outweighed by the cultural and societal benefits of alcohol — hence, the public is willing (grudgingly) to pony up a high tax to preserve these benefits. Further, if we accept the premise that alcohol causes physical disease, this does not mean that this cause-and-effect relationship costs the public money. The cost of disease treatment must be balanced against the much larger savings realized from not having to care for the disease victims in their old age. In November 1990, California voters — to their credit — voted down down numerous ill-conceived ballot initiatives. Significantly, the initiative voted down by the widest margin was the so-called "nickle a drink" tax. "The alcohol industry is immensely profitable, soaking the public and running up huge profits" Like any industry, the beverage industry has its profitable segments. But many segments, including small retailers, most wineries, smaller brewers and microbrewers, and importers/wholesalers of premium products, are stuggling to stay alive under the burden of regulation and inequitably high taxes. (Whenever an alcohol tax is inceased, it results in an onerous one-time "floor tax" on the retailers and wholesalers.) "Just as is the case for tobacco, alcohol is bad for your health" Although there are specific cause and effect relationships for some diseases, overall no adverse health impact has been demonstrated. In some cases, consumption of certain products such as red wine have been associated with lowered disease risk, and moderate drinkers are on average healthier than non-drinkers. This contrasts sharply with the proven health problems of tobacco smoking, the total lack of health benefits associated with smoking, and the fact that smokers adversely impact the health of others with second-hand smoke. "Shutting down neighborhood bars will improve the quality of life in the community" Purely a value judgement. Plus, if local on-sale establishments are restricted, many people will find themselves driving even further in order to go out for a drink, thus potentially increasing the number of drunks out on the road. To limit the current level of drunk driving — if one views this as a problem — one should advocate widespread mass transit that runs past closing time, plus a bar or two in every neighborhood. "The alcohol industry targets the poor and ethnic with their advertising" The usual red herring. Sure, the industry targets everybody with their advertising. Why shouldn’t they? If they’ve got a good product, that is compatible with a given subculture, let them advertise it and let people buy it if they like. It’s the American way! Again, the anti-alcohol types are moving away from the concept of inidividual responisibilty. "Let’s do something good for the community by working against alcohol" Self-righteous neo-prohibitionists always disguise their motives and claim that they are working for the good of society. Don’t be fooled. Neo-prohibitionists are a minority special interest whose true motivation is the same as that of the the anti-gay or anti-abortion factions that run so rampant these days: sick, unfulfilled individuals who get some sort of charge out of interfering with people’s personal lives. Neo-prohibitionists are on a power trip that is fueled each time they succeed in dictating their warped morals on a defenseless public. These people are dangerous, folks! "Stricter regulation will reduce the number of alcohol-related social problems" The experience of Prohibition proves exactly the opposite.
Response:
Categories: Cocaine Addiction Symptoms | 
No Comments »