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

I think the better question is, why is only alcohol, and very few other intoxicants, legal? Why is it that you can get drugs to make you normal, but not better than normal? Why is it that you can take a drug for "anxiety" but not take drugs for boredom?Some people probably don't need to be taking drugs, but some adults should be able to take whatever drugs they like. Maybe we should have a recreational drug license?

Are they? Our rules in regards to recreational drugs don't seem to be very consistent, if we use harm as a metric. For instance, hundreds (or more) die every year from alcohol poisoning or the physiological toll of years of drinking; marijuana doesn't have those side-effects. A fair number of the side-effects of a lot of illegal drugs stem not from the active drug itself but the sundry chemicals that are invariably introduced into the mixture simply because their illegality mandates that they be prepared outside of a safe laboratory setting.I've been high on pot, and I've been on Celexa and Welbutrin for depression. I had way worse side-effects from the anti-depressants. Well, why not do drugs? I don't understand why you find that to be a less legitimate activity than, say, an active sport or a good book. Seems like all three of those things accomplish about the same thing, which is to say, nothing. Well, anxiety may simply be too much imagination, it's not clear to me that anxiety is any more pathogenic or appropriately treated with pharmacology than boredom is. Boredom can interfere with your functioning in society, too.I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to perscribe drugs for one fake problem and not another. And what do you suppose those anti-anxiety drugs make you feel like? Probably relaxed, good, open to trying new things, maybe a little gregarious - in other words, exactly like being high. Because they make you high.

And listen to Fleetwood Mac. So, you know, watch out for that.

Well, what makes you think drugs can't excerise your mind? I mean, minds aren't muscles; by "excercise" I assume you mean "give you an opportunity to think about things in a new way, or learn something new." Well, what makes you think drugs can't give you an opportunity to think about things in a new way, expand your perceptions, take you on flights of fancy, or even teach you something new about yourself?You can throw out your back or get tennis elbow too, you know. But, say, reading isn't? Or just sitting and thinking? Or playing Nintendo? It seems to me that just about anything you do by yourself would seem pathetic and lonely; that's what "being by yourself" kind of means. I guess I see it as imagining the same thing over an over again, when what they should be doing is to stop imagining and do something. I guess I say that from a perspective of feeling a lot of anxiety as a result of some recent personal matters, and what's killing me is what I'm imagining. When I just stop imagining those things, I feel a lot better. Were their old selves relaxed and gregarious? Well, great. So you get high the circuitous route, the long way; and you think it's wrong to take the more direct approach?I should say; I don't really use drugs at all. Once or twice in a couple of years (alcohol much more often). I'm not really attracted to feeling high on anything - drugs, religion, sex, whatever. It's stillness that drives me - the stillness of meditation, of nature, of the martial arts, of companionship. Things like that. Probably why I'm neither religious nor on drugs.

Well, hang on, now. The idea that male drivers cause more accidents isn't just some "cultural stereotype"; it's a commonly-accepted, often-repeated actuarial justification for soaking male drivers with higher insurance premiums.This is the first I'd ever heard that that isn't the case. Even the article itself spells out what a surprising find this turns out to be. I think you're way off-base to criticize Schraf for repeating the conventional wisdom, and to accuse her of promulgating a stereotype for her own benefit.Men do take risks, more so than women. To assert otherwise is to either ignore science or betray a gross misunderstanding of the mind-altering, harmful drug called "testosterone." I am a riskier driver than both my wife and my sister. But also, I've never been in an accident; compared to my wife's one and my sister's three.

So, in other words, you're a creationist. Well, check the article. They're not comparing raw numbers of accidents for men and women; they're comparing accidents per mean hours driven. So an increase in the number of women drivers, or the amount that women drive, wouldn't have any effect on that.

Hey, while you're at it, ask him about "persecution complexes". Brenn might find that information useful, as well