Should alcohol be banned?

[malakadang]

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

Why?

Do you have any reasoning or evidence to support your opinion?

 

No, it shouldn't be banned.

Mostly because, even with restrictions it will be sold, prices will go higher and such a big industry would be affected.

In my city they are banning certain hours for the sale of alcohol, but that's about it, and I do agree with this. Alcohol in certain hours does cause problems.

 

[ytrewq]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

Mostly because, even with restrictions it will be sold, prices will go higher and such a big industry would be affected.

In my city they are banning certain hours for the sale of alcohol, but that's about it, and I do agree with this. Alcohol in certain hours does cause problems.

If a city is having problems with alcohol, this seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

[djweasel]

Oh my god alcohol will never be prohibitted again. I am firmly believing that it is fine that it's legal.

People can say the following:
"Oh it causes too many car accidents and it killed somone I know" Who let them drive, it was their choice. Don't you think that I've had friends die from this?

"My friend got so drunk he died from poisoning" Oh really well then he prolly can't handle his booze. Also had friends die from this.

I think it's fine the way it is I am gonna bet a majority of the people on Sythe aren't of legal drinking age or they haven't done it so they think it's bad. I am 24 almost 25 and I'm responsible with my drinking. The people that get use drinkers (weekend warriors) in trouble are the ones that get arrested for doing something while drunk, but don't people do that type of stuff on other drugs too?

Oh and also it's been around since the early Roman times and is used in churches even.

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

Oh my god I want to tear you a new one for this post, so you're telling me if I'm at my apartment and I live across the street from my favorite bar/club, that I shouldn't be allowed to walk over there already drunk and keep drinking and having fun?

 

[MrLuckyDraw]

Oh my god alcohol will never be prohibitted again. I am firmly believing that it is fine that it's legal.

People can say the following:
"Oh it causes too many car accidents and it killed somone I know" Who let them drive, it was their choice. Don't you think that I've had friends die from this?

"My friend got so drunk he died from poisoning" Oh really well then he prolly can't handle his booze. Also had friends die from this.

I think it's fine the way it is I am gonna bet a majority of the people on Sythe aren't of legal drinking age or they haven't done it so they think it's bad. I am 24 almost 25 and I'm responsible with my drinking. The people that get use drinkers (weekend warriors) in trouble are the ones that get arrested for doing something while drunk, but don't people do that type of stuff on other drugs too?

Oh and also it's been around since the early Roman times and is used in churches even.



Oh my god I want to tear you a new one for this post, so you're telling me if I'm at my apartment and I live across the street from my favorite bar/club, that I shouldn't be allowed to walk over there already drunk and keep drinking and having fun?

I love how under your name it mentions that your a drunkard X)

And I have the exact some opinion as you.

@Malakadang - Ill answer your thingy later... feeling kinda tired right now

 

[swifty_rs]

no cuz I love to drink and be drunk

 

[ScammersAreDumb]

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

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

Perhaps if you would have actually read the article yourself, or done other research, you would also know that you're still wrong. You're still an idiot. Genes do not control what we do. While genetics can have a factor on alcoholism, it doesn't mean that it's a direct addiction to alcohol. Certain genetic factors can make one get a better or stronger high from alcohol than those who do not have the same genetic makeup. Simply because someone does have the right genes, does not mean that person will become an alcoholic, or even drink for that matter.

Your entire argument is invalid, because genes cannot and do not control whether people drink or not, or the impulse to drink. They can simply control the feelings associated with drinking. You might have someone who gets an incredibly strong high from alcohol, yet he barely ever drinks. Then you might have someone who doesn't get much of a high at all, yet drinks all the time. This is even more evident in identical twins. Both twins have the same genetic makeup, yet one is an alcoholic, and the other isn't. If it was strictly based on genetics alone, both would have to be alcoholics, yet that isn't true.

Yes, while some people who have had alcoholic parents or other family members might have a better chance of being an alcoholic, you're way over generalizing as in saying it is in every single human beings genes to drink. It's also in our genes to survive, to eat, to drink, and to breathe. If I kill someone and start eating the flesh and meat off their bones, using your logic I can justify that because it's in our genes.

 

[MrLuckyDraw]

Yes, while some people who have had alcoholic parents or other family members might have a better chance of being an alcoholic

So, in conclusion... you agree with Malakadang?

 

[malakadang]

Perhaps if you would have actually read the article yourself, or done other research, you would also know that you're still wrong. You're still an idiot. Genes do not control what we do. While genetics can have a factor on alcoholism, it doesn't mean that it's a direct addiction to alcohol. Certain genetic factors can make one get a better or stronger high from alcohol than those who do not have the same genetic makeup. Simply because someone does have the right genes, does not mean that person will become an alcoholic, or even drink for that matter.

Your entire argument is invalid, because genes cannot and do not control whether people drink or not, or the impulse to drink. They can simply control the feelings associated with drinking. You might have someone who gets an incredibly strong high from alcohol, yet he barely ever drinks. Then you might have someone who doesn't get much of a high at all, yet drinks all the time. This is even more evident in identical twins. Both twins have the same genetic makeup, yet one is an alcoholic, and the other isn't. If it was strictly based on genetics alone, both would have to be alcoholics, yet that isn't true.

Yes, while some people who have had alcoholic parents or other family members might have a better chance of being an alcoholic, you're way over generalizing as in saying it is in every single human beings genes to drink. It's also in our genes to survive, to eat, to drink, and to breathe. If I kill someone and start eating the flesh and meat off their bones, using your logic I can justify that because it's in our genes.

Violence is in our genetics, yet, that doesn't make us all violent.
Alcohol is in our genetics, yet, that doesn't make us all alcoholics.

I never said that because it's in our genetics it controls us and makes us drink, no. It however leaves a predisposition for us to. Look up evolutionary biology. When something is done constantly by our ancestors, that trait passes itself down in our genes. Of course whatever is in our genes doesn't make us utilize that trait. Nevertheless, people with that trait would be more inclined to partake, or become addicted to than people that do not have it.

You are taking what I said completely out of my context and to an extreme way to Cherry Pick.

 

[ScammersAreDumb]

Violence is in our genetics, yet, that doesn't make us all violent.
Alcohol is in our genetics, yet, that doesn't make us all alcoholics.

I never said that because it's in our genetics it controls us and makes us drink, no. It however leaves a predisposition for us to. Look up evolutionary biology. When something is done constantly by our ancestors, that trait passes itself down in our genes. Of course whatever is in our genes doesn't make us utilize that trait. Nevertheless, people with that trait would be more inclined to partake, or become addicted to than people that do not have it.

You are taking what I said completely out of my context and to an extreme way to Cherry Pick.

You were making the argument that it is illogical to ban alcohol because it's "part of our genetics." Our genetics do not control the urge or impulse we have to drink. Our genetics can only control how we're affected by such things. One could make a case that even though indirectly related, they're still related, however, the way you were using it in your argument is completely irrelevant and incorrect.

In other words, our genetics wouldn't make it any easier or harder to ban alcohol. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

I also know what cherry picking is, you don't have to attempt to insult my intelligence. You also don't need to use part of the definition in the same sentence you're using the word in, it's somewhat redundant.

 

[malakadang]

You were making the argument that it is illogical to ban alcohol because it's "part of our genetics." Our genetics do not control the urge or impulse we have to drink. Our genetics can only control how we're affected by such things. One could make a case that even though indirectly related, they're still related, however, the way you were using it in your argument is completely irrelevant and incorrect.

I never said it was illogical to ban alcohol because it's in our genetics. I'm merely saying that it is in our genetics. Many people can pressured into drinking alcohol, if the alcohol they drink is further fueled by a genetic predisposition, then it is entirely relevant as generally alcoholics cause more of a problem than social drinkers.

In other words, our genetics wouldn't make it any easier or harder to ban alcohol. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

This discussion should be more about why some people think they have the right to relinquish everyone's natural rights.

I also know what cherry picking is, you don't have to attempt to insult my intelligence. You also don't need to use part of the definition in the same sentence you're using the word in, it's somewhat redundant.

If you know what Cherry Picking is, why do it?


Do you think humans have the right to do what they want, so long as they do not impinge on the natural rights of others?

In this context, do you believe humans should be able to drink whatever they want?

 

[ScammersAreDumb]

I never said it was illogical to ban alcohol because it's in our genetics. I'm merely saying that it is in our genetics. Many people can pressured into drinking alcohol, if the alcohol they drink is further fueled by a genetic predisposition, then it is entirely relevant as generally alcoholics cause more of a problem than social drinkers.

This discussion should be more about why some people think they have the right to relinquish everyone's natural rights.

If you know what Cherry Picking is, why do it?


Do you think humans have the right to do what they want, so long as they do not impinge on the natural rights of others?

In this context, do you believe humans should be able to drink whatever they want?

No, humans do not have the right to do whatever they want, even if it doesn't impinge on the natural rights of others. There are many things that are illegal that don't necessarily impinge on others' natural rights, yet I don't see you screaming the injustice of those laws. If there is a specific act that humans do that increases the chances of another human being harmed, it needs to be looked at and at least a chance to be reconsidered. It isn't the ends justifying the means, it's a case by case review. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot be taken to this situation.

Somewhat off-topic, I don't personally believe alcohol will ever be banned, however, that doesn't change my view on that it should at least be better regulated, if not effectively banned altogether. I'm not saying alcohol can't be enjoyed responsibly, what I'm saying is that I'd rather get rid of alcohol entirely, than get rid of human lives due to alcohol.

 

[Noam]

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.

You're not doing this right. Your arguemets are weak and easy to defeat.

Think of it like this:
A person should not drink water, as water has the ability to harm an ajdacent person.
See what I'm getting at?
The ability of water to be dangerous is actually significantly gtreater than it's ability to help. This mostly because we are not exposed to the condition water is most often found in, or the many negative uses it has. Check this out: http://dhmo.org/
Note this IS a joke site, and DHMO is actually a fancy name for water, but the morals in the site are good, scientific ones. (ignore the EPA bullshit)

 

[Gurtaton]

But it kills people.
But it can pass STD which inevitably kills people.
Radiation emitted is life long and damaging.
.But distracting someone could kill them.
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.

This is getting ridiculously frustrating. I will respond to this with one sentence: The pro outweighs the cons by a far greater degree.

Your flawed logic contradicts itself because you do not support alcohol's banning and yet you admitted you value human lives, even though alcohol itself leads to more unnecessary deaths and misfortunes (which are preventable). Now you tell me. How the hell is this not contradictory?

You deny this with your "slippery slope fallacy", "irrelevancy" and "it's not contradictory" argument. Please, for the love of God, stop.

 

[malakadang]

No, humans do not have the right to do whatever they want, even if it doesn't impinge on the natural rights of others. There are many things that are illegal that don't necessarily impinge on others' natural rights, yet I don't see you screaming the injustice of those laws. If there is a specific act that humans do that increases the chances of another human being harmed, it needs to be looked at and at least a chance to be reconsidered. It isn't the ends justifying the means, it's a case by case review. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot be taken to this situation.

Alright, why do you think humans can't drink whatever they want? You disagree that we can't do whatever we want so long as we impinge on the rights of others? Where do you draw the line?

Somewhat off-topic, I don't personally believe alcohol will ever be banned, however, that doesn't change my view on that it should at least be better regulated, if not effectively banned altogether. I'm not saying alcohol can't be enjoyed responsibly, what I'm saying is that I'd rather get rid of alcohol entirely, than get rid of human lives due to alcohol.

You set saving human lives as your moral standard?

You're not doing this right. Your arguemets are weak and easy to defeat.

Think of it like this:
A person should not drink water, as water has the ability to harm an ajdacent person.

That's my point. Gurts logic that the ends justify the means is unacceptable.

See what I'm getting at?
The ability of water to be dangerous is actually significantly gtreater than it's ability to help. This mostly because we are not exposed to the condition water is most often found in, or the many negative uses it has. Check this out: http://dhmo.org/
Note this IS a joke site, and DHMO is actually a fancy name for water, but the morals in the site are good, scientific ones. (ignore the EPA bullshit)

I use those arguments to show the ramifications of his logic. Since he is arguing the ends, I feel I have the right to do so as well.

This is getting ridiculously frustrating. I will respond to this with one sentence: The pro outweighs the cons by a far greater degree.

List a list of Cons, and make sure you agree to debate with pure reason.

Your flawed logic contradicts itself because you do not support alcohol's banning and yet you admitted you value human lives, even though alcohol itself leads to more unnecessary deaths and misfortunes (which are preventable). Now you tell me. How the hell is this not contradictory?

That's not contradictory. Might I say that if you support the banning of cars you contradict yourself. You prove that logic sometimes has bad consequences. This is true, however, attack the logic itself and don't show how it can go wrong on an emotional level. Throw your emotions and morals out the door in a debate with reason, or, just don't debate at all.

You deny this with your "slippery slope fallacy", "irrelevancy" and "it's not contradictory" argument. Please, for the love of God, stop.

I like to debate with reason, not emotion and morals. Don't tell me to stop for debating properly

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

I would say no. As long as intensive alcohol and drug education is maintained in the public schools and alcohol remains legal to solely adults, i see no reason to make it illegal. Each adult is responsible for his actions, and responsibility should be at the descretion of the individual.

 

[wtp]

No, what people do to their bodies is their own business.

 

[Mizoreofsnow]

No, what people do to their bodies is their own business.

This basically says cocaine, heroin, meth, ect all shouldn't be illegal either since it's what people do to their own bodies

 

[malakadang]

This basically says cocaine, heroin, meth, ect all shouldn't be illegal either since it's what people do to their own bodies

Your absolutely right, it shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Root beerpk3]

*Facepalm*

Anyone with common sense can answer this question. If alcohol is banned the drug cartels will take a chance and start distrubuting from opiates, benzos, amphetamins. People will turn to that as it will be cheap and easy to get. An addiction to opiates is a lot stronger than alcohol. Whic will turn people into criminals. Gosh...
But you know what they say, there's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people.