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

No. Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness.If you prohibit every substance, device, or knowledge that creates destructive behaviors in some people, we will all be the poorer for it. Even without intoxicants, some people drive recklessly--shall we ban cars? Hackers use their knowledge to defraud--shall we ban the net?Legalize everything: prohibition never works.The urge to experience altered consciousness is universal in our species and common in many others. Western cultures struggle with alcohol poisoning because they have banned every other outlet, including all nondestructive or less destructive substances. When you criminalize cognitive liberties, you move one step closer to criminalizing ideas.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.

In my book, unacceptable behavior would be such things as drunk driving or trippy flying.And are you telling me that acid is illegal? Agreed. My "everything" was intended in the context of recreational drug use--and I think you knew that and are tweaking my nose!To clarify: I have no problem with laws against drunk driving--or "drugged" driving in general, as well as the operation of any kind of potentially threatening machinery. That is precisely what I meant by saying that law and policy should address behavior, not states of consciousness.If an officer of the law suspects my garden salad was topped with magic mushrooms because I am smiling at flowers while singing quietly to myself in the park, he should just walk on by: I would be doing no harm.If that same officer observed me driving erratically, he should closely investigate the cause: if he spies a baggie of psilocybin or amanita mushrooms in the car (or an open bottle of whiskey), he should pursue his strong suspicion that I am driving under the influence of a powerful mind-altering drug, which is and should be illegal. If he observed me float from my flower bed and prepare to drive away, he should intervene in the name of public safety. 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.Edit: "singly" to "singing" while sober as a judge, too.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-26-2005 05:41 PM

Sheesh...and they say Americans are irony-proof! 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.I understand clearly the current state of legal affairs in these matters. I thought it was event that I was addressing my beliefs about how things should be, with respect to my ideas about personal liberty and greater social good. My apologies for being unclear. Yes, we already live in a world where that is sometimes true; I object to that, and I especially object to attempts to ratchet up the divide-and-audit shredding of a social fabric that has functioned well. We are approaching the cusp where risk-assessment becomes dictatorial. I believe that would be a terrible mistake, both in terms of individual freedom and social cohesion.I'll repeat my unanswered question: is that the sort of world you prefer? Yet I don't see how to quantify your relevant behaviors' impact in this matter without close surveillance: {CAUTION--APPROACHING IRONY} I hope you won't mind. You may feel that none of your behaviors are unnecessarily risky, but we won't know until we watch you closely.There are indeed social, political, and economic interests that advocate and would profit from that approach being applied universally. Their success to date has largely depended on an obfuscation of the financial costs--and the degradation of the quality of life--for the majority of individuals.The fundamental notion of insurance--a system of shared risks in which no single subscriber must bear the brunt of a calamitous event--is threatened in many ways: genetic testing, prudery, the imposition of moral and religious values... In the U.S., the purest form of shared risk without judgment is Medicare, yet that, too, is being whittled away by privatization, a process in which private insurers cherry-pick younger, less cost-demanding participants, leaving the older, sicker members of the pool facing ruinous costs, or even scrambling to find care at any cost, since many health providers refuse to participate due to low payments.This unravelling is an essentially "conservative" (read "economic elite") enterprise. The removal of social safety nets and the insistence on individual shouldering of costs favors those for whom health costs are trival WRT to their own wealth.Nonetheless, if societies are readdressing these questions of shared risk, then, in the spirit of equitable treatment, all risks should be on the table. Perhaps I do not want to pay for broken limbs, or paralysis, suffered on a ski slope or dirt-bike course; perhaps you don't wish to help shoulder the cost of cardiovascular disease resulting from years of a foolish diet; perhaps schraf loathes paying for the health consequences of drink and smoke; mayhap Faith would decline to pay for a Down's syndrome child's care when the parental risk factors are well-known, and diagnostic tests and abortions widely available. But if we each strike what we consider objectionable behavior from the common pool, there will be no pool at all. Perhaps she'll do a better job of it next time. O brave new world that has such taxpayers in't!This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-27-2005 12:19 PM

Thank you, Modulous. I understand your position more clearly now. That sounds a bit like hair-splitting; in fact, taking acid is most certainly illegal. I believe that U.S. laws (and most others) regarding illegal drugs apply to both possession and use, and a large body of precedent allows the State to test for the presence of illegal drugs in the individual. Being demonstrably "under the influence" is accepted as evidence of possession and use. 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 law.For example, my own State was founded partly on the notion of universal equality and "inalienable rights" but justifies torture of foreigners because they are not citizens under the rubric of the Constitution that codifies those rights, and denies habeas corpus because the torture is not taking place on American soil.

Here ya go.After 40 years on the road, my observation is that in the past, the aggressively nutty driver was inevitably a young male. In recent years, I have found that expectation upended: the lane weaver seems as likely to be a young lady. Perhaps my subjective impression holds some validity: This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-27-2005 09:10 PM

---

Real science did not really get going until Christians began applying the inference of a lawful universe made by a rational God to the study of the physical creation. --Faith

Ah, insurance.Several years ago I was involved in three accidents in rapid succession. Two of them were serious, and I was not a fault. The third was trivial--my foot slipped on the clutch at a stop, and I broke someone's turn light--no other damage (since the collision occurred at less than walking speed). I was seriously injured in one of the accidents that was not my fault, but fortunately was not injured in the other.Nonetheless, my insurance co. cancelled my policy because I was involved in three accidents within a six month period. The opportunists whose turn light I broke found a quack chiropractor to support their specious claim of severe back sprains to four people, and filed a nuisance suit against me, even though their vehicle was unregistered and uninsured, and two of the supposed victims (children) ran about and played at the scene of the accident. I begged the police officer to document this in his report, and he refused, saying it was not relevant to his duties. My former insurer found it expedient to pay them off rather than contest an obviously fraudulent claim.Ironically, my own significant spine injuries led the opposing insurance co. to claim that their insured had experienced a "medical emergency" (she claimed to have passed out a split second before striking the rear of my car at 45-50 mph) which was the proximate cause of the incident, and more than three years, two surgeries, considerable pain and diminution of my phsyical capacity, and many bouts of physical therapy later, we are preparing to go to court.Now my insurance is horrendously expensive, although all I did was break a plastic light cover, since I have both a settled peronsal injury claim and an insurance cancellation "for cause" on my record.In fact, it is so expensive that any settlement I gain from the court case will likely be eaten up by the time those increased insurance costs return to my prior, many-years-accident-free rates.Ah, insurance.

---

Real science did not really get going until Christians began applying the inference of a lawful universe made by a rational God to the study of the physical creation. --Faith

As you can see, mick, even when presumably sober, none of us can stay focused on a topic for more than a very short time indeed.Alcohol is legal so we'll all eventually go to sleep and do no further harm.That's my hypothesis, and I'm sticking with it.Good night.