|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,822 Year: 4,079/9,624 Month: 950/974 Week: 277/286 Day: 38/46 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Which raises the question: If the majority wanted alcohol to be illegal, should it be? Yes, probably.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I believe that in a democracy it is the people that should decide such things, not individuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
so by your logic it should be okay to make it the state religion 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.
...make other religions illegal if the populace votes for it! I wouldn't want to live in your world. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a place where the majority of people would want to make certain religions illegal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think democracy needs to include some "unalienable rights" for individuals. Not sure if Mod would agree I basically agree, but who decides those rights if not the people?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Any way you look at it, if the people don't like it, they can overthrow the government. So ultimately, the people decide what those rights end up being, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No. Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness. 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.
If you prohibit every substance, device, or knowledge that creates destructive behaviors in some people, we will all be the poorer for it. I agree. I don't want the prohibition of alcohol, or other drugs.
Even without intoxicants, some people drive recklessly--shall we ban cars? Hackers use their knowledge to defraud--shall we ban the net?
Precisely.
Legalize everything: prohibition never works. Well, no. We can't legalize 'everything' - murder, theft and rape should remain prohibited!
The urge to experience altered consciousness is universal in our species and common in many others Agreed, as I said in Message 8:
quote: When you criminalize cognitive liberties, you move one step closer to criminalizing ideas. Absolute agreement.
I will drink, smoke, inject, or swallow anything I damn well please, and the State (and my neighbors) can stay the hell out of my body and mind.
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why is drunk driving worse than any other {inability\unabled} driving? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The fallacy of the scientific result as a gospel truth. 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.
Some are blinded by a drink or two, while others can drink all night and be better than the former. I imagine the number of people that have consistently quicker reaction times at a BAC of 0.08 is astonishingly small.
Ability to perform tasks can be measured and can be tested for getting a license and repeated after every accident. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So you would rather let anyone drive and pay the cost of accidents and injuries and deaths before sorting out who is really just plain incapable of driving safely and knowing their limits? Looks like a logical fallacy there RAZD, since you like pointing them out, I thought I'd do the same. I said:
quote: 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?
I had my van hit on a residential road with a 20 mph speed limit, and it was parked. Is that person competent to drive? Insufficient information to make a conclusion. Being competent and being perfect are miles apart.
They were on the way to work and no alcohol was involved. Should that make a difference? 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.
Should the police give them a lighter ticket than they would if he had been drunk? 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).
He had a valid licence to hit a parked vehicle on a 20 mph residential road? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In my book, unacceptable behavior would be such things as drunk driving or trippy flying. That is what is currently illegal. Making a substance illegal makes it illegal to purchase, possess or manufacture it.
And are you telling me that acid is illegal? LSD is a class A drug in the UK which means possession carries a maximum seven year sentence.
Do you wish to live in a society where every person's risk-taking is audited by the State? What a dreary world it would be if our liberties were circumscribed by the risk-costs that others will tolerate. It would spell the end of all adventure. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sheesh...and they say Americans are irony-proof! Taking acid, and tripping are not illegal. I said this in response to your statement:
Omni writes: Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness. The state of consciousness 'tripping' is not illegal. Nor would 'being drunk' if alcohol were made illegal.
This thread began in the context of questioning why alcohol is legal. The most relevant answer is probably one of profit, both directly to producers and, indirectly via tax revenues, to governments; I suppose the violent failure of Prohibition, and Whisky Rebellions, may also have some influence. Which is largely how I responded to this thread.
I'll repeat my unanswered question: is that the sort of world you prefer? 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.
Yet I don't see how to quantify your relevant behaviors' impact in this matter without close surveillance I mentioned the arbitrary position that the law is forced to adopt in an attempt to be clear and practical.
But if we each strike what we consider objectionable behavior from the common pool, there will be no pool at all. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Thank you, Modulous. I understand your position more clearly now. No worries - isn't that a great demonstration of the tag line for the forum?
Being demonstrably "under the influence" is accepted as evidence of possession and use. 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 would generally agree but with strong reservations of individual rights that cannot be infringed upon by the will of the majority, and I would include my conception of cognitive liberty within those reservations. I believe the "people" have no more right to tyranny than the State, and the individual has no obligation to respect an unjust law: the 20th century is replete with horrors accepted--or enacted--in law by the people, as well as those created by perversions of the laws I basically agree here too. It was touched on back in Message 22 This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 28-November-2005 08:00 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024