Why is alcohol an "accepted" killer? I mean the only people that seem to point out the fact that alcohol is a killer are MADD. Look at cigarettes and the warnings attached to them and ask yourself if there isn't a disparity.

link

http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1999/12/03_sound.html

another

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1092170.htm

Life with a vice is for me twice as nice. :wink:

I know it is a killer but if we are going to go down the road of putting warnings or banning on everything that may harm yourself or others then
we will be living in a very different society.

You could argue that cars should be banned and that everyone uses public transport. This would save thousands of lives a year. You could argue that fatty foods should be banned this would also save a lot of lifes.
With fatty foods it's not just yourself your harming but it's the people waiting for treatment in the waiting list behind you who are needing life saving operations.

There are age limits for most things that can harm. The warnings on the cigerate packages need to be there because there was a general ignorence of the dangers of smoking. However most people know about the dangers of excessive drinking and there are warnings (I asume, I can only talk about the UK) of drinking and driving.

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...630/prj:6/.png

Alchohol can be a pleasant experience, it can also be a killer. taken occasionally in moderation for most folk it's not a problem. There are others however who should never drink.

Knew a guy who was one of the greatest, quite gifted and intellegent. 1/2 pint of larger and he wanted to fight (literally) everyone in the place. It was like throwing a light switch. He came from a background of alchoholisim, a brother and sister also had acute problems (though different in nature). Their father had aslo been afflicted and the family either inherited the disease or were conditioned to it from birth. They are the exception but for people like that abstinance is the only solution.

Drink/driving is a crime - no ifs buts or maybes - one strike and your out. Period.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

I'm planning on having me one of them pleasant experiences in a half hour when I get off work. I don't need no warning labels, I wouldn't read them anyway. Besides there's already warning labels, on beer at least, but I'm not a pregnant mother nor will I be operating machinery, except maybe a virtual heavy bomber or a rifle or two.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

the chemically induced altering of perception doesn't seem to be limited to humans. I recall seeing a film where elephants ate up fermented fruit to the point of intoxication. Considering the distinctive taste such fruit would have, and the fact the elephants did not avoid them (and in fact, appeared to seek them out), one could argue consuming alcohol may be in our genetic make up!

(and yes, I'm playing devil's advocate here. . .).

__________________
. . . My moustache is touching my brain!!!!

It's not the alcohol that kills, it's the people who drink the alcohol in excess that kill.

They sometimes kill other people. They sometimes kill relationships. They sometimes kill their careers. They sometimes kill themselves.

If you are going to drink, drink in moderation. I certainly believe nothing is wrong with drinking. Some even think it's a healthy choice.

People always say I have an alcohol problem. That is so wrong!! If there is one person who has no problem at all with alcohol it's me!

(just for the sake of the joke)

Serious on topic, the problem with alcohol is the dangers of using it a lot, or drinking and driving and the like. There is no problem with drinking alcoholic drinks if you stay within reasonable borders considering your tasks and your handling with alcohol. There is such a difference between drinking a little alcohol, and lots (and regularly). Classifying alcohol in the same category as chocolate and coffee, or amongst harddrugs really depends on how much people use it. That makes alcohol such a difficult subject.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Alcohol is so easy to produce it would be impossible to enforce a ban.

Just crush the juice out of apples, the natural yeasts on the skin will ferment it, result - Scrumpy. Stick it in a freezer and seperate the alcohol if you want something stronger.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I don't understand why alcohol is a legal mood-altering substance and other substances are not legal. Based purely on health effects, I would suspect that cigarettes should be the most illegal. But our laws are not that rational. I suspect that they are based on mixture of history, politics and lobbies, and various moral / religous beliefs.

Personally I would legalize all the mind altering substances for personal use, for adults only, and as long as you didn't harm anyone else. So driving under the influence, for example, should be illegal, whether the influence is alcohol or drugs. I'm not advocating the use of any of these things, though I think moderate use of the less toxic ones is fine, but if you want to mess up your life, why is that the government's business.

I thought we proved in the 1930s with Prohibition that making a particular substance illegal does not get rid of it and just makes the criminal distrubutors of it that much richer (the user has to cover the cost of their risk taking). IMHO the "War on Drugs" is a stupid, expensive joke.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Penn & Teller did a really good episode on the War on Drugs.

In that vein, which is similar to Swift's view, I think the real question is not why is alcohol legal while others are not, but rather why are other drugs illegal while alcohol isn't.

There are obviously some drugs that should be very tightly regulated. I'd argue that something like heroine should be kept out of the hands of most people. Then again, I'd also argue that something like nicotine should also be severely limited in its distribution. Not because of the harm done to one's body by these drugs, but rather because they're rather insanely addictive.

Most narcotics are banned because at one point in time or another, a group or groups of people who used them were considered lazy or immoral. At the same time, advocates of these substances love to point out that some of the world's greatest pieces of art were made under the influence. Music, poetry, paintings, all done by people who were crazy on the drugs. Something we tend to forget or ignore when we go to the museum, or pop that CD into our walkman.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Here's a bit of trivia for the board. The reason marijuana was made illegal is because cotton growers had better lobbyists in Washington than hemp growers.

Cannabis, the plant that is used to make marijuana can also be turned into hemp, a material very similar to cotton, except it's cheaper to harvest and turn into cloth and it grows in just about anything. As a result cotton growers were, in economic terms, getting their teeth kicked in.

To stop this threat to their prosperity, "the evils of marijuana" came to light and cotton's lobbyists managed to get enough votes to ban marijuana and the hemp threat went away as well.

Doesn't Michigan have the 'annual weed fest'? I remember my buddies driving up there once a year, pay a fine, and smoke weed. :roll:

Guess where they are now?

Guess where I am?

Its pretty simple: alcohol can be used safely. Cigarettes cannot.

I feel it my duty to point out that a while back I started a topic about the legality of drugs and it's pro's and cons. With a focus on cannabis.

That thread got locked. Whilst I would like to discuss these issues it would not be fair to get banquo's thread locked because of an slightly OT discussion. And maybe this is not the place because of the age of some readers. I do not want to give the impression that children can take any altering substances.

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...630/prj:6/.png

I agree and I mentioned that indirectly in my posting. Children are not emotionally mature enough to make decisions about the consequences of the use of these substances (including cigarettes) and the biological effects of these substances on their bodies is very different (and usually harsher) than adults.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Even many adults aren't mature enough for that.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

That the government(s) collect vast sums of money in the form of taxes on alcohol and tobacco is another reason for their 'allow-ance'. Have noticed recent TV ads beginning to appear, ever so slowly, of various liqueurs, too.

I saw today that Mayor Daily proposed taxes for all of the above, except alcholol. He suggested $1 tax per tire instead. 8-[

Remember folks - they tried to ban alcohol in my country nearly a century ago. It was a total failure, in part because alcohol is so easy to make. Interestingly enough, at the time what we now consider hard drugs like cocaine and opium were legal. It wasn't till after alcohol was made illegal that the goverment started going after the other drugs.

There are several simple physiological reasons why alcohol can be seperated out. First, alcohol is ingested which means your body has reverse peristalsis as a natural mechanism for dealing with over-indulgence. So your stomach can warn you when you're starting to go to far. That is not always the case with drugs that are smoked, inhaled, injected ...

Second, some of these drugs are highly toxic and addictive after minimal usage. There's no such thing as "experimenting" with certain drugs. You try it - your life is altered forever. I personally am against making it easier for people to destroy themselves and those around them with such substances.

Third, along with the last, it doesn't take very much to OD on these drugs and you don't necessarily know what "dose" you're getting. A person drinking alcohol knows that a shot of hard liquor packs more punch than a beer. A person taking crack can OD before they have a clue they've taken too much.

I wouldn't. Our society already allows cigarettes and alcohol. If you can't meet your recreational needs with those items then you're goals too destructive anyway.

You could make the same argument about murder. Its expensive to prosecute it. You're never going to eliminate it from society. And there are some that get very rich in the process of engaging in it. That doesn't mean we should give up and make it legal.

My observation of the debate on this issue has been that the people in favor of making all these drugs legal usually either use this "too expensive to fight drugs not going to wipe them out anyway" argument or use the illegal drugs.

I always liked the "Just Say No" public education program of the 80's. Its a simple, catchy way to send the message to kids that illegal drugs are to be avoided.

I suspect this is going to be the point where things get touchy, but I'm going to say it anyway: Who are you to say that what I do to my body on my own time is or is not "too destructive"? Why is that a value judgement that you feel you have the right to make for someone else?

Here's an analog argument that I think will strike some people here rather close: We already have video games where people can attack giant monkies with mallets, and throw fire at monster lizards. If you can't meet your recreational needs with those games, then your goals are too destructive anyway.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Well first, let me say that I'm not interested in getting into a flame war on this. Your response does not upset me so please don't worry about a knee-jerk reaction.

As for your point. Our legal system makes that decision all the time. My state has a seat-belt law. If you're in a car,van,suv ... you have to wear a seatbelt or you can be ticketed. Overall it protects lives. Perhaps some people find less enjoyment during the driving experience because of the law, but it is deemed for the greater good of all to have such a law. If you want to hunt you have to sit through a hunter-safety course.

My point wasn't really about making judgements as to what is "too destructive". If someone wants to find some of these illegal drugs and destroy themselves, they'll find a way. It seems pretty clear that the those drugs are self-destructive. I don't think the government should make it easier for those people by making the drugs legal.

In addition, it almost never can be reduced to "its my body so mind your own business". Most people have families, friends, and co-workers. Use of the illegal drugs increases the risk a person poses to those around them. In particular the children - enough has been documented about the negative impacts alcoholism can have on children. I don't see why as a society we should introduce legal access to a whole new set of even more dangerous drugs and expose children to that.

What separates alcohol from the other drugs is that there is a much larger range of tolerance for what constitutes "moderation" or "responsible use". Its possible to drink alcohol in moderation. What is moderate use of crack, heroin, ...?

Virtually every law has as its purpose the goal of protecting the greater good of society. And most of these laws infringe in some way on our freedom to do exactly as we please without consequence. Laws are passed when the consequences of allowing something to be legal are much greater than the consequences of limiting individual freedoms to allow people to do as they please. IMO the illegal drugs clearly fall into that category.

It also makes your heart stronger and you more healthy if you use it smartly. Most people don't, but the accepted thing is it makes people look more socially acceptable, much to peoples regret in the morning

the irony there is that it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. But somehow congress gained the power to outlaw chemicals after that...

The libertarian in me believes that drugs should be legalized. However, the few law enforcement officers that I have talked to about legalization of drugs (marijuana included) were all against it. Since these are the folks in the trenches, dealing with the drug problems every day, if I had to vote right now, I would go along with the folks I spoke with and vote against legalization.

I rarely drink alcohol, but in a Mexican Restaurant, washing down a hot tamale or a spicy enchilada with an ice cold DOS XX seems to make the meal taste that much better. Or when I go to the local minor league ballgame, it just seems natural to have a couple of Dodger Dogs and a cup or two of flat beer. With my mass, the one or two beers I drink with my meal or at the ballgame will have an insignificant physiological effect on me. The point is, for a variety of reasons, millions of people drink a beer, have a glass of wine, or whatever because they enjoy it, not because they want to get wasted. I am not sure the same can be said for other “recreational” drugs. It is my understanding, the whole point of taking those drugs is to get high.

A pal of mine had a heart attack six weeks ago, they put stent pipes in and he is OK now, anyway the Doc encouraged him to drink up to 3 units a day, it helps the blood flow apparently.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

There seems to be a lot of subjective opinions being bounced around here...for that reason, I will not be participating in this discussion.

Another version:
"... Marijuana was made illegal in the 1937 to remove a threat to the synthetic fibers made by DuPont, just as the same company has connived a ban on Freon, now that their patent on it has run out..."

Back on (expensive) topic:
"Britain made merry-making with drunken excess grounds for a steep fine during the Christmas season, with the government attempting to rein in a worrying and widespread problem of binge-drinking.
Measures which take effect this weekend and run through January include raising the fines for disorderly behavior and allowing police officers to issue on-the-spot penalties for illegal alcohol sales to minors..."