Should alcohol be banned?

[Jeff]

No, of course it shouldn't.

Alcohol is majorly used as a celebration beverage around the world.

This is also an unrealistic question as your it is very broad and general.

Are you stating for alcohol to be banned in your country or worldwide?

 

[malakadang]

Are you stating for alcohol to be banned in your country or worldwide?

Whether it is banned in a country, or worldwide is irrelevant. The fact is that it's banned. So to answer your question, either.

 

[Dave.]

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.

I misunderstood your logic, and i was strictly talking about alcohol so don't bring anything else into this, if you want to start a debate about smoking, driving, eat nuts and whatever else, make a topic.

One person should not have the right to endanger someone else as with drinking 1000's of people drive drunk and they are involved in crashes and many innocent people are killed, a guy who lives near me was killed when he was riding his bike at night with lights on and a drunk guy come down a one way road the wrong way and ran him over.

Now explain to me why that driver had the right to kill him and take him away from his family and friends but now this drunk driver in the uk will probably get 5 years in jail and then will go back to living his life.

 

[malakadang]

I misunderstood your logic, and i was strictly talking about alcohol so don't bring anything else into this, if you want to start a debate about smoking, driving, eat nuts and whatever else, make a topic.

Logic can be universally applied. It doesn't matter what variable you sub in.

One person should not have the right to endanger someone else as with drinking 1000's of people drive drunk and they are involved in crashes and many innocent people are killed, a guy who lives near me was killed when he was riding his bike at night with lights on and a drunk guy come down a one way road the wrong way and ran him over.

No cars no crashes, right? Not everyone that drinks endangers lives, as well.

Now explain to me why that driver had the right to kill him and take him away from his family and friends but now this drunk driver in the uk will probably get 5 years in jail and then will go back to living his life.

That driver had absolutely no right.


Can you see that your using the ends justifies the means argument?

You keep arguing the end-cause when they are entirely irrelevant. The end cause is bad, therefore we must do something to fix it. This fixes it, therefore it is good/right/just/logical.

 

[Gurtaton]

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

1) A person should not smoke, when smoking has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
2) A person should not drive, when driving has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
3) A person should not have sex, as having sex has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
4) A person should not have a microwave, as having a microwave has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
5) A person should not distract, as distracting has the potential to endanger an adjacent person.
6) 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?

1) Yes.
2) Too many disadvantages if we ban it. No.
3) Inevitable. We would doom humanity without kids. No.
4) Use it responsibly. More useful than harmful. No.
5) Again, it's inevitable. Also, sometimes people need to be distracted. No.
6) Eat it responsibly. No.

 

[Dave.]

You keep arguing the end-cause when they are entirely irrelevant. The end cause is bad, therefore we must do something to fix it. This fixes it, therefore it is good/right/just/logical.

it's not irrelevant, if that guy didnt drink he wouldnt have killed someone.

 

[malakadang]

1) Yes.

2) Too many disadvantages if we ban it. No.

But it kills people.

3) Inevitable. We would doom humanity without kids. No.

But it can pass STD which inevitably kills people.

4) Use it responsibly. More useful than harmful. No.

Radiation emitted is life long and damaging.

5) Again, it's inevitable. Also, sometimes people need to be distracted. No

.But distracting someone could kill them.

6) Eat it responsibly. No.

Some people can smell nuts and get go into Anaphylaxis and die.

Here's a thought. Drink whatever you want, just don't impinge on the rights of others.

it's not irrelevant, if that guy didnt drink he wouldnt have killed someone.

And, If that guy didn't drive he wouldn't of killed someone. What is your point here?

 

[Dave.]

Here's a thought. Drink whatever you want, just don't impinge on the rights of others.


And, If that guy didn't drive he wouldn't of killed someone. What is your point here?

he killed someone because he was drinking, and it was banned it wouldn't have happened.

and yeah go ahead and drink all you want but dont cry when you need medical attention and you dont get it by the way you're going about things.

 

[malakadang]

he killed someone because he was drinking, and it was banned it wouldn't have happened.

But you can also kill someone because you were driving, and if it was banned it wouldn't have happened.
What is your point?

and yeah go ahead and drink all you want but dont cry when you need medical attention and you dont get it by the way you're going about things.

I agree.

 

[MrLuckyDraw]

How would this pragmatically be installed and regulated?

Well, obviously a country cannot monitor all of what goes on and people will always find a way to get past rules and regulations. My proposal is to strengthen most (if not all) current laws.

For example - When I was younger (14) ((Currently 15) I was able to purchase liquor for a party. One might ask: How on earth did I manage that? The answer is - Fake ID. Shopkeepers/Bartenders need to know how to spot a Fake ID without flaw - perhaps it can be taught to them before they can get their license to sell liquor.

Also, we can increase the tax on all purchased alcohol. Not only will this act as an "alcohol deterrent" but at the same time it will bring in some extra revenue for the government.

Stricter punishments could also be applied as an alcohol deterrent. and again, this also brings in some extra revenue for the government (fines).

PS - The fake ID I had when I was 14 was unbelievably easy to spot as a fake.... It had a dinosaur next to the date of birth and It was printed on the other side of an arcade card. LOL?

 

[Pro Porkchop]

Alcohol shouldn't be banned.

Cars get more people injured/killed then alcohol does. Also, how many crimes do you recall hearing of where the criminals did not use a car?

Just because some people purposely or accidentally commit crimes with cars does not mean cars should be banned. The same applies with alcohol.

 

[Dave.]

Alcohol shouldn't be banned.

Cars get more people injured/killed then alcohol does. Also, how many crimes do you recall hearing of where the criminals did not use a car?

Just because some people purposely or accidentally commit crimes with cars does not mean cars should be banned. The same applies with alcohol.

a lot they piss on the streets, throw up on the streets, they getinto fights the vandalize things drunk kids in my area have put breeze blocks through car winscreens lol.

 

[malakadang]

Well, obviously a country cannot monitor all of what goes on and people will always find a way to get past rules and regulations. My proposal is to strengthen most (if not all) current laws.

I'll follow your tac. I'm going to go to a UN representative and tell him I have a brilliant idea. He will say, what is it? I will say World Peace! He will say, how can we achieve that?

How can we achieve your proposed idea pragmatically?

For example - When I was younger (14) ((Currently 15) I was able to purchase liquor for a party. One might ask: How on earth did I manage that? The answer is - Fake ID. Shopkeepers/Bartenders need to know how to spot a Fake ID without flaw - perhaps it can be taught to them before they can get their license to sell liquor.

Of course, why would they care.

Also, we can increase the tax on all purchased alcohol. Not only will this act as an "alcohol deterrent" but at the same time it will bring in some extra revenue for the government.

Well, I don't support taxes in general, but this would lower alcohol consumption, yes.

Stricter punishments could also be applied as an alcohol deterrent. and again, this also brings in some extra revenue for the government (fines).

Deterring alcohol is different from banning it.

a lot they piss on the streets, throw up on the streets, they getinto fights the vandalize things drunk kids in my area have put breeze blocks through car winscreens lol.

The substance alcohol is not breaking any laws, it's the people. If someone gets drunk and decides to 'get into fights', 'put breeze blocks through car windscreens', you would punish the individual and the acts they commit, not alcohol.

 

[Dave.]

Deterring alcohol is different from banning it.



The substance alcohol is not breaking any laws, it's the people. If someone gets drunk and decides to 'get into fights', 'put breeze blocks through car windscreens', you would punish the individual and the acts they commit, not alcohol.

If there was no alcohol they wouldn't commit those crimes.
What does drinking alcohol do to benefit the drinker?

 

[blindkilla]

If there was no alcohol they wouldn't commit those crimes.
What does drinking alcohol do to benefit the drinker?

You're inferring that alcohol is the reason people commit those crimes, which is false.

Stupid people do stupid things regardless of alcohol. I don't know anyone who would even consider doing anything stupid while under the influence (driving, etc).

 

[malakadang]

If there was no alcohol they wouldn't commit those crimes.

Your arguing the ends justify the means. Can you not see this now?

Are you for higher crime rates, or lower crime rates?

What does drinking alcohol do to benefit the drinker?

Hmm. Well, it generally makes people more social by inhibiting their cognitive functions. It generally makes people have a good time, though, excess amounts do not. I guess if you graphed it as a quadratic function, the Turning Point would be a few drinks.

You know, even if alcohol had NOTHING good about it whatsoever. If it upon consumption killed people, I would still support it's legalization. My body, my choice.

 

[Dave.]

Your arguing the ends justify the means. Can you not see this now?

Are you for higher crime rates, or lower crime rates?

Hmm. Well, it generally makes people more social by inhibiting their cognitive functions. It generally makes people have a good time, though, excess amounts do not. I guess if you graphed it as a quadratic function, the Turning Point would be a few drinks.

You know, even if alcohol had NOTHING good about it whatsoever. If it upon consumption killed people, I would still support it's legalization. My body, my choice.

those arent even benefits.

You're right, its your body your choice, im not really bothered about it being legal/banned but people who drink should not put others at risk. they should not get medical attention if they injure themselves, but if you enjoy it responsiably at home and dont cause trouble to surrounding people/yourself then it's fine.

and to blindkilla, if there was no alcohol the offenses i mentioned above would decrease.

 

[Pro Porkchop]

You know, even if alcohol had NOTHING good about it whatsoever. If it upon consumption killed people, I would still support it's legalization. My body, my choice.

To help Malakdang, benefits:
Reduce your risk of developing heart disease
Reduce your risk of dying of a heart attack
Possibly reduce your risk of strokes, particularly ischemic strokes
Lower your risk of gallstones
Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes

 

[malakadang]

those arent even benefits.

Whether or not alcohol has benefits, I'd still support it's legalization.

You're right, its your body your choice, im not really bothered about it being legal/banned but people who drink should not put others at risk.

I agree, If you choose to drink, you should face the consequence of your actions if any.

they should not get medical attention if they injure themselves, but if you enjoy it responsiably at home and dont cause trouble to surrounding people/yourself then it's fine.

I agree, however, with the medical attention, unfortunately this is unpragmatic as society would be up in arms.

 

[Fedor]

yes and should be only consumed at your house nowhere else to prevent damage