Should alcohol be banned?

Jesus, you're just like one those people, "My friends do it and so I have to do it too." Western ignorance.

Fuck your rights. I'll sacrifice your freedom for the safety of my people. And you're still ignoring the fact that you'll benefit as well.

Ooh, ooh, let's ban everything that causes anything even slightly negative. Instead of complaining about that, go fix your McDonalds.

Yay! Let's all drink whatever we want and send ourselves to the HOSPITAL! And while we're at it, let's blow our productive time and money, not to mention the countless number of hospital staff required for a PROBLEM that COULD BE PREVENTED. That STAFF could've better spent their time on MORE UNFORTUNATE VICTIMS and not PEOPLE WHO FUCKED THEMSELVES OVER.

Drink my piss and tell me how it tastes.

That's how you dismiss a point? I just pointed out how fucked up your society is.

Because your damn youth are turning into alcoholics themselves. If I banned something you like, you obviously would protest. Fix that shit first, and educate your newer generations more properly.

Because the answer is blatantly obvious here. And I'm not being biased at all. You're benefiting too here, but it's your addiction that causes you to deny it.

The rest of your post have already been taken care of by someone else.

Already taken care of by ScammersAreDumb.

You give humans too much freedom, they'll fuck up. Sometimes it seems like I'm the only one who's retained my sanity.

I am not caging you, I am offering you a once-a-year occasion where you can drink. It would not cause too many health problems and would satisfy you, unless you're that fucking greedy.

No? I just said that perhaps it could be allowed on special occasions to form a compromise. Not only would this increase my support on its banning, but it would also satisfy the other group (the group that drinks).

I did not understand what you meant at all. Those 30,000 affect themselves and others around them. There are far too many possibilities to list, but I'm saying, that this potential risk can easily be gotten rid of but Western ignorance refuses.

I am not missing the point. Swimming is a survival skill. It does not harm your body or put any harmful chemicals inside. Compare drinking and tell me how "I am missing the point".

Basically, you just agreed with me. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Already answered by Dave.

 

Personally, I Think it should be banned because it kills human's brain cells and it can lead to fatal failure of brain's system when getting older. When drunk, even worser, you do stupid things that you would never do. You possibly would do a stupid stuff that would lead you to go in a course and get a life sentence like a fucked cunt.
Also alchol just is unhealthy and you will get some ugly and fucked up stomach shape. I have a six packs, under a week, alcohol possibly would lead me to have a body with four packs then other week, I wouldn't have at least one pack. That would make me lose an attraction of girls like I do now.

Alcohol will make your body skin wrinkled fast and they would give you pimples fatal loss of girls.

Being drunk is may be fun, only for the night. On the next day you will be sick and having a hangover which sucks majorly. True me, I've experienced it terribly.

People Who thinks drinking is cool is like people who thinks smokin is cool. Well these people are a group of fucked up people and having a fucked up future.

I reccomend you to NOT drink at any circumstance.

Haters, get fucked cunts

 

That's not an acceptable response to the question. Yes or No will suffice.

Fuck my rights? Really?

So, you are arguing that the ends justify the means? How can this be applied universally?

It tastes bitter.

Australian society is actually fairly good, thanks. Have you been here before?

What's the difference in between banning the Koran because people can become extremists? We are trying to educate the youth.

Actually, if the drinking becomes prohibited, I would not benefit. I do not suffer now as is, yet, when drinking became prohibited in the US in the 1920's everyone suffered.

I've responded to him then.

Too much freedom? I'm sorry, how treacherous of me to want to drink what I want. How dare I.

Why are you so verbally aggressive? If you starve someone of they so desperately love, what are the chances are that when you give them back that freedom they'll abuse it? It's like the cat and a ball of string.

So, taking away the rights of people would satisfy us? I don't think your being reasonable that the group that drinks would be satisfied. What do you do on a daily/weekly basis?

The ends do not justify the means.

The point is that people can die from swimming. Does that mean you simply ban it?

I'm actually in favor of legalizing all drugs, even Cocaine, Heroin, and so on. I never ever disputed that alcohol is bad for you. I'm just saying that as a natural right, humans have the right to drink whatever they want. You disagree; why?

Responded to him.

 

How the hell do you "go in a course" WTF is that?

Six packs come all at once. They're always there, but they're very small until you train them up. You don't go one pack...two pack...three pack. That's just plain retarded

You seem to be suffering from sobriety. It's quite fatal.^_^


@Gurtaton: Japan is just as westernized as the west. Just look at this and tell me why you put lard in your bread. http://kotaku.com/5484581/japan-its-not-funny-anymore

 

No, alcohol should not be banned. Yes, it is true that many an accident has occurred due to misusage and over-usage however, the responsibility falls upon the user. It is the user who controls whether he drinks to much or not. It should not be banned for everyone who is able to drink responsibly. Those who choose not to, are the ones who give alcohol its bad reputation which it does not truly deserve.

Its called moderation everyone.

 

you make a fair point, but there should be punishments for abusing alcohol not lol £80 fine and a nigth in a cell it should be more extreme to prevent people from doing it, thats why it should not necessarily be banned but people who've abused it in the past should defintaly be banned and not be able to have a driving licsense

People who drink and drive endanger innocent people on a daily basis, so what gives them the right to endanger peoples lives?

I think alcohol should be legal but it should be in a controlled environment or where theres a place for you to stay after you've finished drinking so that you don't have to go outside but thats not gonna happen lol.

 

It does affect it, but it can be resisted. So yes.

Sacrifice your freedom for the well-being of other people or sacrifice the well-being of other people for your freedom... You choose.

My main point is that alcoholics cause more trouble in the long run.

Glad you could take a joke.

No.

Educate the youth by making movies with clubs being shown as "places where cool people go and get wasted"? Yeah, that's really good influence.

Your people are hit with the idea that religion = terrorism. I've already told you. If I blew up a building and said that I was a Muslim and I did it because the Qu'ran told me to, would you believe me? Your media talks a load of bullshit and your naive little citizens believe it instantly. If you wanna argue about this, go find one verse that tells you to randomly kill people for no reason.

The harm is not visible yet, but it will be in the long run.

In 1920, it was your group that caused the suffering. They would not let go of their addiction.

Indeed. How treacherous of you to harm both yourself and society. How dare you.

Go ahead. As if I ever consumed anything harmful to my body just for pleasure.
And it's 'cause that sort of thinking that we can't reach a compromise. I'm letting you relieve yourself of your stress for once a year. Surely that's better than a complete ban?

I don't drink, that's for sure.

That isn't my point. You said that those 30,000 people would only affect themselves. I said no.

Then let's ban eating since you can also choke to death sometimes.

And give more opportunities for your own society to fuck itself up. Good idea.

Harm my society, I'll ban your shit. Natural rights my ass. Who even decided it was a natural right to harm society?

How is this relevant? I do not even live in Japan.

No. I do not trust people enough not to abuse it.

Are you implying that traditions can't be changed? The Arabs, during Muhammad (S)'s time, were told to stop drinking and they did. Because of their religion, they were able to remove alcohol from their society. How are you any less capable of doing the same thing?

The old "but this thing has just about the same potential" argument. The main inventor behind the cooking knife had the intention to make life in the kitchen easier. If the user uses it for any malicious purposes, you do not blame the inventor, but the user. Hands can be used to choke someone to death. Will you cut off everyone's hands? No, because the pros outweigh the cons.

In the same way, life without cars would be very difficult. And even though it has potential, it is not as harmful as alcohol.

What do you have to say about alcohol destroying brain cells?

 

it should be banned. it causes havoc and corruption is societies. its just another cause of destruction. drinking and driving. drunk shootings, etc. its bad for the human body too. No wonder islam Prohibits it.

 

So do many other things in our average society... and its only really harmful to the human body (and by extension the safety of others) when taken in large amounts. When we take the safety of ourselves, and others to an extreme extent, we end up with very little free will.

I would love to show you all a video clip from family guy. Unfortunately, I cannot find it on youtube. Its from the episode where Peter has an accident due to drunk driving. The character: Death shows peter his life with, and without alcohol. I know its a cartoon, but its the moral from it is there nonetheless. I recommend you watch it:

Episode Name: Friends Of Peter G
Season: 9

 

I'll try to say this in a way you'll understand. You are an idiot. Alcohol is in no way in our genetics. People have walked on land all their lives as well, does that mean walking on land is in our genetics? I have many friends that drink, along with many friends that don't. Personally, I don't drink. I work at a bar, I have access to just about every kind of alcohol there is, but I don't drink. I'm not tempted to drink, nor do I have any urge or desire to drink. Alcohol, once again, isn't part of our genetics. Why you're actually trying to make that a valid point makes me literally want to disregard everything else you post, because it's that stupid of an attempt at making a supporting point for yourself.

Let's establish a few fun facts.

1. It is possible to live without alcohol.
2. It is possible to live without cars.

3. Banning cars would have a much bigger impact than banning alcohol. Far more people are affected by cars than they are by alcohol.
4. Cars play a much more important role in people's lives.

Banning cars would have a much more adverse effect on the public than it would if it banned alcohol. I'm not saying banning alcohol wouldn't affect anyone negatively, it most likely will, however, the two are not even close to being on the same scale as one another. The fact that you're trying to compare the two as one in the same is laughable at best.

Banning cars would decrease human efficiency tenfold, if not more. Banning alcohol wouldn't decrease human efficiency at all, if anything it would increase it. Whether you want to believe it or not, cars aren't a luxury anymore, they're a necessity, while alcohol is still only a luxury.

 

Why not? if you do not currently reside in Japan, you have at the very least originated from there or are somehow related to that location. You very clearly have JAPAPNESE characters in your location.

 

Just because I know a little Japanese doesn't mean I'm related, lol. And I'm currently self-studying.

 

Go take a simple course on Biology before you talk smack.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478142/

So, the ends justify the means?

Banning alcohol is citing that it contributes negatively to society is an irrelevant argument as it falls on the ends justifies the means. Can we apply this form of argument universally? We cannot. We should we bifurcate and apply it here?


I ask you one questions. Do you believe that humans have the right to consume any liquid substance they desire?

@ Gurt, I'll reply to you later, I'm mad that my reply didn't go through T.T

 

They should not have the right to consume a liquid that can endanger another person around them.

 

Let's simplify this to logic.

A person should not do x, when x has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.

Is this acceptable?

 

Are the only two options banned or unbanned? because there is a middle ground. Allow only a moderate amount of alcohol to be consumed. That way, horrible accidents are drastically reduced and everyone is still happy

 

That was pretty much my proposal. Allow alcohol only in special occasions like Christmas or something.

 

How would this pragmatically be installed and regulated?

 

Yes, but there should be a system where it can be monitered to how much someone has had to drink like a blood sugar test which takes literally 10 seconds idk how long a alcohol blood content test would take though but im sure they could find a method that is rapid. and once they are over a certain limit they would not be able to be served more drinks or something

 

I'm assuming the yes is solely aimed at the logic I prescribed to suit your proposal.

In which case, we can substitute x for anything.

Let us test how good this proposed system works.

A person should not do x, when x has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.

A person should not smoke, when smoking has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
A person should not drive, when driving has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
A person should not have sex, as having sex has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
A person should not have a microwave, as having a microwave has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
A person should not distract, as distracting has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
A person should eat nuts, as nuts have the potential to endanger an adjacent person.

Have I proved my point of this faulty universally applied logic?

I'm assuming this is independent after the comma.

Blood Sugar Testing? You want to jab a needle into me? If you'd like, I'll tell you a medical book that shows that for every time you jab a needle into you, your cell wall weakens and so does your immune system.

Blood Alcohol Content takes a while. This would not be pragmatic.

How would we determine what the limit is? This isn't very pragmatic. You would kill the industry.