why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread

Good question. Alcohol has been with civilization since its beginning, and probably before. We are blessed with intelligence and consiousness, but are cursed with being intelligent and aware enough to realize that the world is a dangerous and stressful place. Alcohol, and other drugs have been used to help mankind ease this psychological burden for a long time.Is this a good thing?In a great majority of cases: yes.Sometimes it has tragic endings, and too often it can have disastrous consequences for families/friends. This is the curse, not of use, but of abuse.I don't think the pub being open an extra hour, or the nightclub in town being open 5 extra hours is going to make alcohol 'easier' to obtain. I can go to my off licence at 11am, buy 4 bottles of scotch and be drinking till 11 the next morning, and licensing laws surrounding consumption of alcohol on a commercial premises aren't going to affect that.Also, a greater emphasis is being placed on licensed premises' staff not serving people who are clearly drunk. Drinking at such a place is safer because there is, theoretically, somebody sobre there to tell you when you've had enough. A great deal more than one gets sat at home with a crate of whisky.Hopefully, increasing the hours on-site business can sell alcohol will offset the profit loss from the possible extinction of happy hours, otherwise known as 'buy as many drinks in this time period as you can' promotions. Hopefully this will slow people down and allow a constant stream of punters rather than a rush of drink happy binge drinkers slavering at the chops.Why is alcohol legal? Because we live in a democracy where the majority want it that way. Because making it illegal would be futile due to its ease to make, and the boom organised crime would get.The violent drinking culture is bad. I believe licensed premises are facing too much leniency in allowing drunken behaviour on site, because it keeps the money flowing in.The great majority of people drink in moderation and with responsibility.

Yes, probably.

I believe that in a democracy it is the people that should decide such things, not individuals.

Erm, not really. It would have to be the majority opinion that its ok for congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a place where the majority of people would want to make certain religions illegal.

I basically agree, but who decides those rights if not the people?

Indeed - but laws can be established to help prevent this: after all, I'm sure the majority of people don't want to be potential victims of the Tyranny of the Majority.Is this a sticky area, full of pit traps and problems? Yes.

So ultimately, the people decide what those rights end up being, right?

Agreed. Unacceptable behaviour would be things such as 'Brewing alcoholic beverages, selling alcoholic beverages, buying alcoholic beverages'Being drunk should be no more illegal than tripping on acid is now. I agree. I don't want the prohibition of alcohol, or other drugs. Precisely. Well, no. We can't legalize 'everything' - murder, theft and rape should remain prohibited! Agreed, as I said in Message 8:

quote:

---

Alcohol has been with civilization since its beginning, and probably before. We are blessed with intelligence and consiousness, but are cursed with being intelligent and aware enough to realize that the world is a dangerous and stressful place. Alcohol, and other drugs have been used to help mankind ease this psychological burden for a long time.

---

Absolute agreement. Damn straight. This is confused somewhat by medical costs for the resulting damage you can cause to yourself and the ethics of all of that...

I imagine it is because people are not aware that they are too old or too immature and it is very difficult to quantify too old/too immature/too tired. However - people have been prosecuted for the latter two and had their licence revoked for the former, its less common because it is less easy to demonstrate than alcohol content in the blood.Drink driving is easily quantifiable and testable, and the person involved is mostly aware that they have been drinking.

The scientific result is a massive indication that a person has been drinking. Drink driving is a crime. Whether or not it is justified as a crime is irrelevant. An adult has responsibility to abide by the law or face the consequences for not doing so. If you drink before you drive, you are running the risk of having too much alcohol in your system to legally drive. I imagine the number of people that have consistently quicker reaction times at a BAC of 0.08 is astonishingly small. As far as I'm aware the ability to perform tasks is already tested to get a licence. Do it again after every accident? That's going to cost a heck of lot - there are about 8 million accidents reported in the UK per year. If we are looking at 50-100 to pay for each one: 400million - 800million is not inconsiderate, especially given that as it stands the UK motor insurance industry already pays about 100million more in claims than it takes in premiums.It would be nice if we could treat every case individually and treat each person as unique, but we are stuck with a law that has to be general and draw a definite line, and allow the individual to appeal later.

Looks like a logical fallacy there RAZD, since you like pointing them out, I thought I'd do the same.I said:

quote:

---

It would be nice if we could treat every case individually and treat each person as unique, but we are stuck with a law that has to be general and draw a definite line, and allow the individual to appeal later.

---

Which should let you know that I don't want the consequence you are warning of. If somebody said that we should spend $1billion dollars to enact a program to increase road safety, is somebody pointing out the costs a statement that they would rather road safety be lesser than spend money? Insufficient information to make a conclusion. Being competent and being perfect are miles apart. Yes. If they were drunk, that indicates that they are a higher risk to being involved in a further accident since they have shown themselves incapable of obeying the law.If they were on their way to work, their risk is greater due to the mileage they probably do, and they are more at risk for causing a collision than someone whose been driving 30 years with no incident...unless of course they have been driving 30 years, in which case it is most likely to be a one off incident.If the police believe they were driving without due care and attention they can prosecute, which may raise the insurance premiums, and further convictions can lead to suspension of their licence or an total ban on driving. Yes. Hitting a parked vehicle is a very common incident type and usually causes only a small amount damage and injury is rare. When drunk, the driver is likely to react slower to the imminent collision and be driving much faster when it occurred. They have also been drunk for all of their journey, increasing the chance of having an serious accident in the first place (whereas they may have only been driving without due care for a short period). Did he have licence to hit a parked car? No, he had licence to drive a vehicle. If he causes damage to another vehicle he is liable for the damages, and assuming he is insured can have his insurance company subrogate his liability.

At the risk of drifting topic,I couldn't find any study which would support the idea that drivers with ADHD should make better drivers. I found several that contradicted this idea..It may well be an adaption, but I'm, not sure if the hunter vs farmer theory is concenus opinion.

That is what is currently illegal. Making a substance illegal makes it illegal to purchase, possess or manufacture it. LSD is a class A drug in the UK which means possession carries a maximum seven year sentence. We already live in that world, if you think it is dreary, then so be it. Here in the UK a woman was given an ASBO for frequent suicide attempts because it was costing the emergency services a lot of taxpayers time and money and causing distress to the public.In the end, the solution is to either pay for any damage yourself or have nobody repair said damage by excusing yourself from society.

Taking acid, and tripping are not illegal. I said this in response to your statement: The state of consciousness 'tripping' is not illegal. Nor would 'being drunk' if alcohol were made illegal. Which is largely how I responded to this thread. As I hinted in my posts, I would prefer a world where recreational drugs were not criminalized - if cigarettes can be legal and taxed I don't see why many drugs cannot be likewise taxed. I would prefer a world where drugs are not stygmatized. I would prefer a world where money wasn't a problem, where social problems wouldn't rear their heads. I mentioned the arbitrary position that the law is forced to adopt in an attempt to be clear and practical. Precisely my point...individuals should not make the decision as to whether x should be illegal or not, but the people should make that decision.

No worries - isn't that a great demonstration of the tag line for the forum? And under most circumstances that is true, but it would have to be shown that you took the drug intentionally.edit to add minor point: if one was to fall into a trip state of consciousness without taking an illegal drug (for example, a flashback), this would not be illegal. I basically agree here too. It was touched on back in Message 22This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 28-November-2005 08:00 AM