Should alcohol be banned?

It's not fun being PJ'd...

And, um, also, could you guys tell me how many glasses you drink per day/week?

Depends on what type of free will you're trying to argue for. The right to do whatever you want, no matter what? Or the right to do whatever you want, so long as it does not impinge on someone else's rights?

If A, then perhaps you should start giving from every old guy to just about every newborn baby a gun. It's what we call freedom, right? Yep, those guns won't ever be abused.
If B, then there are the people on the drinking side that DO impinge on other people's rights, and these cases were influenced by alcohol. Now, you could argue that, "Just because they do it doesn't mean we will," and to this I say...

There are better ways to enjoy yourself. Why is drinking a necessity for you to make you feel less anxious, to forget your troubles? Because you allowed it. There are better ways to obtain the same pros that alcohol offers, and they don't have terrible side-effects either.

No. He asked me to explain why cars shouldn't be banned when both have the potential to kill, and I did.

Now, as for your points... I don't think that it's very accurate. For the first two points, there are substitutes. The third is irrelevant. The fourth is Appeal to Tradition. Take a look at: http://www.peaktestosterone.com/Alchohol.aspx [Seven Dangers of Alcohol section]

And let us not forget...
<-- Taken from Wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_sex]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

The bars are filled because it's become like a tradition in those societies. Go to a Muslim country and see how the masjids are full.

If that is aimed at me, then I'll have you know that I read up on a lot of articles about alcohol, and it is not the way to go in the long run. Socializing? Give me a break. There are better, healthier substitutes.

Name one other luxurious right as useless as alcohol, and then we'll list its pros and cons.

 

So, are the pros and cons list the only factor you take into account when finalizing a decision whether or not to relinquish ones ability to consume an alcoholic beverage? Are there any other factors that the Pros and Cons list do not cover.

I won't proceed to reiterate our previous discourse, I think we both know our positions, I will however try to demonstrate IMO why I think your position isn't the best one, namely, Pros and Cons in regards to deciding rights.

For the record, I drink weekly/fortnightly.

 

Interesting question.

I prefer being flexible and re-thinking the same idea over and over, looking for possible flaws, because I could be wrong. When I think about it, there are certain things that will make people terribly unhappy when taken away, and that is why the implementation should be done in a slow and proper manner. The reason Prohibition failed is because the change was too sudden, there was absolutely little to no time for people to move on from the alcohol industry, and I'm sure that some riots were for jobs.

"How should we socialize without alcohol?" is a question that comes up often. Substitutes, is all I can say. Nobody's stopping you from partying, now are they?

 

there is no sense to ban alcohol.

alcoho is made easily.

 

Rethinking how the Pros outweigh the Cons is not being flexible IMO.

Can you prepare a deductive argument for using Pros and Cons as your method of determining whether rights should be relinquished?

The problem I find with Pros and Cons is as follows. It is essentially Utilitarianism, the Greater Good argument. Unfortunately, this ethical standard which you are presumably promoting (Pros outweigh Cons, The Greater Good) is no more than slavery. You see, If I were to enslave you for the benefit if 100 people, would that be justified? Self-sacrifice, some people don't see the wrong in this, but, Utilitarianism promotes this. This is intertwined with Slavery, you should sacrifice yourself for the greater good.

The greatest flaw of this ethical system encompassing the first two points is the tyranny of the majority. Utilitarianism dictates that majority rules. If the Majority want to... let's say kill a small cult, this would happen because the will of the majority outweigh the will of the lesser populace. This is the same argument coming from Pros and Cons. Just because the pros may seem to, or do stack up against the Cons, it should not be the system prescribed in making decisions. This differs from business related matters where a compilation of Pros and Cons (cost-benefit analysis) is used as a supplementary tool.

But alas, I shall reiterate, can you make a logical deductive argument for Pros and Cons in relation to this matter?

 

No, who doesn't like to go out and have a few beers, or get even get shitfaced. Just because some people go over the top doesn't mean that it should be banned.

 

Zero. Big weed smoker though.

B for me. People can easily overdo cheeseburgers, so you would agree that we should ban cheeseburgers because of the heart problems that are developed as a result of overuse?

Once again, I'll use the car as an argument. People might use cars to enjoy themselves. Driving down a long road at midnight with the windows down to clear the mind and feel good. This might and has resulted in accidents.

Do we say," No! You can't drive! Ride a bike instead!"?

No.

 

Haha, interesting challenge.

In Case A, you asked me if it would be justified to enslave me for the benefit of a 100, since then the Pros would outweigh the Cons. To this, I say no, because you would be violating a human right, and that is 'freedom'. If the person agrees to be enslaved, then it is justified. But drinking, on the other hand, is a luxurious right and thus, not necessary to live a fulfilling life.

Hm, let's see now, Case B. IMO, Utilitarianism is different from Pro vs Cons in a way, because the latter is not opinionated, while the first is. If the majority told me to do something wrong, I would not do it. And of course, to create a Pro and Cons list we would be using science to avoid inaccuracies.

Now, as for the cult, it would depend on what exactly they did to enrage the majority. If it broke the law, or destroyed peace/caused havoc, then yes, I would take action. I would not violate their 'right to live' without a valid reason.

The reason for banning is not overuse. It's Pro vs Cons, and when the Pros can be gained elsewhere in a better way, it highly diminishes the need for it. If we followed your logic of banning things just for having the potential to be overused, then almost everything would be banned.

Already undermined.

 

Actually the right, freedom, is "You are allowed to do as you want, so long as you do not impinge on the rights of others". Otherwise, you could kill a man and say I'm free to do so. You either accept this wholly, and allow people to do as they wish, or, you reject it and your response falls. Drinking itself is a legal right, but, from a natural rights point of view, it is not a luxury. One might also say that freedom is a luxury to a slave.

Utilitarianism is no different for a Pros and Cons analysis:

Pros are Good.
Cons are Bad.
When Pros outweigh Cons, this is called the 'Greater Good'.

x has a greater amount of good points as opposed to bad points
Utilitarianism holds that the greater good is the right thing to do.
Therefore x is the right thing to do.
(If you see a problem with the logic, point it out, otherwise I'll assume you accept it).

How do you know it's wrong? Let's take murder for example, or, stealing, or, drinking.

They believed that Jesus was not the Son of God (for example) in a Christian society. They however did not publically voice it, but rather, people joined and followed at their own will. The general populace wanted to purge them because of this.

I shall reiterate:

Please make a logical deductive, or inductive argument for the use of Pros and Cons in this context.

 

But by forcibly enslaving a man, you are impinging on his rights.
How is it not a luxury? Could you explain?
One might also argue that alcohol is a privilege, and thus not protected by natural rights.

Utilitarianism is wrong because it's people's opinions, and these opinions can be biased... A society that drinks alcohol would never vote against it, because they are already used to it and would rather not give it up. Same goes for smoking.

If the majority want to legalize something really harmful (guns for example), why would it be justified? What is the purpose of a gun? To kill. One might argue that having guns would allow self-defense, but this is blasphemous because its legalization would also result on an increase in such attacks, and cause unnecessary deaths.

What is the purpose of alcohol?

No. It isn't right to annihilate a group because they disagreed with the majority. If they did not publicly voice it, then it's fine. Atheists will always exist, no matter what. What I would do, however, is call for their leader and try to persuade them to disband, promising equality between the religious and the non-religious.

 

And by forcibly relinquishing ones right to drink, you are impinging on his rights.

Because it's for the most part this: C2H5OH, Water would be H2O. Just a few more atoms to create a different molecule. Drinking something is not a luxury, it isn't extravagant at all.

One would be wrong, exempting the fact that the law states you must be 18/21, Natural rights extend irrespective of the law. It is not a privilege to drink water, ice tea, or a margarita.

Not always, in this case, it's fact, and stands.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

There's no purpose of it really, it's just a few molecules that people like to drink. Western society however have given the role of a 'social drink', though, some do take it to far, like with everything, some people drink too much mineral water, or eat too much chocolate.

Equality? What's so good about that? So, you would try to get the leader (individual) to disband the group, but, ban alcohol (whole/collective) outright? Why the different tac?

Would you ban tiramisu? What about all the other foods that contain alcohol?

Do you think the ends justify the means? Yes, or No (sometimes is unacceptable).

Please prepare a deductive or inductive argument for Pros and Cons in this context.

 

Absolutely not, in fact, the drinking age should be 18; none of this 21 year old bullshit.

It should not be banned because it is another beverage just like any other. A person's choice to abuse the privilege of drinking such a delicious beverage is on them. Too much of anything is bad for you. "Most everything" is okay in moderation. The reason the drinking age should be lowered is a whole other argument not to be discussed here.

 

No, though ironic, alcohol keeps my sanity.

 

I'm curious at how many people are of legal drinking age on this thread.

 

I'm 18 and not legal to drink but I do it anyways, Alcohol is extremely easy to get your hands on. I don't see a problem in drinking as I've been doing it since I was 16. Nothing better then mowing the yard then drinking a beer.

 

No. Because people will find a way to get what they want.
Example: prohibition.. boot-leggers.. etc.

Making something illegal causes a black market, increased prices, and no way to regulate it. Same with any other black market drug.

 

Absolutely not !

If I could no longer entertain myself with a bottle of Jagermeister every friday before going out after work, I think my life would be over ... =@

For those who can not abuse the drink, cause problems for the local society then I don't see why not.

But I believe people who do cause problems, Punishments should be made available for the prevention of alcohol.

 

Unfortunately I don't have a source for this, so it could be idle speculation, but I remember hearing that the highest crime rate in the U.S. was during the Prohibition.

 

It's only bad when people drink it too much, so I'd say no.

 

lol @ this thread. They did it in the 20s and 30s and people didnt like it very much. created underground market. Gangster a more crime then there already was when it was legal. Eventually unbanned it. If people had to live life sober...i can't imagine that!