Ah, but there is a critical difference.DrunkCajun said:* But wait--what's considered pornographic?
* we should also consider banning religion.
* Thus, sports need to be banned as well to prevent massive groups
* Guns, in the hands of certain people, get others killed.
Sure you can, it happens all the time. Its called the greater good. This is the distinction between protected rights and unprotected rights. Religion, speech, property, etc are all protected and cannot be taken away without a darn good reason. Alcohol use, like other unprotected liberties, is not. They can be infringed upon if society decides its important enough.You can't ban something because a small percentage of society abuses it in a way that is detrimental to others.
I do.And you doubt the possibility that outlawing alcohol will just lead to more abuse?
Trying to get this back on track? I thought the question was whether alcoholism is a disease. Not whether it should be illegal or not.Cloud_Walker said:
Yes, which is why you can lose the privilege or if a state wanted to, ban driving alltogether. Just like alcohol could be.DrunkCajun said:Speeding is not constitutionally protected, and nor is driving.
FYI, I have had classes on both. I have some interest in constitutional law (as you can probably tell from the threads I am drawn too). I don't want to make this overly legalistic though. I get plenty of that in the workday.And if you think setting shops on fire is constitutionally protected, I'm done debating with you on this issue until you take a course on the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
And yet we all know these are ineffective. People get around them all the time. You and I both know the tricks and have since we were 14.Alcohol consumption in public certainly does have checks on it. In some states it is illegal to serve more than one drink at a time. In others it is illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is visibly drunk.
Why does it follow if something is illegal, we cannot educate people about it? This is the secondary thrust of the war on drugs. And like I said, perhaps the most critical part.The problem with making something taboo and illegal, Garbad, is that you create a stigma around it and people fail to educate themselves about it.
Child porn.I'm interested, by the way, to hear some of your examples of things that have been outlawed with positive benefits.
So we're banning driving altogether now? Can you see the problems with that? Banning driving because a few thousand people die every year from a few people being irresponsible about it. And by the way, you can't be banned from driving if you aren't caught doing anything wrong, and I can tell you that just like with alcohol, there are ways around this. Radar detectors, for example.Garbad_the_Weak said:Yes, which is why you can lose the privilege or if a state wanted to, ban driving alltogether. Just like alcohol could be.
I wasn't implying you hadn't. I was trying to get you to respond to the fact that sporting events may lead people to engage in anti-social and violent behavior, so by your logic, we should ban sports along with alcohol. And by the way, I'm not saying that you really think that way, I'm point out the flaws with banning anything that might be shown to cause a small proportion of those who use it to engage in anti-social behavior.FYI, I have had classes on both. I have some interest in constitutional law (as you can probably tell from the threads I am drawn too). I don't want to make this overly legalistic though. I get plenty of that in the workday.
Not sure I follow. Please clarify for me, I might just be dense.The point was association cannot be prevented until something bad happens. Unlike alcoholism, which can be banned for any reason.
For the record, I didn't touch a drop of alcohol until I was nearly 17 years old. And there are tricks to get around child porn laws, too, but having them in place does serve to deter people from breaking them--if a porn site posts child porn, they will be reported and shut down, and the site administrators will be prosecuted--we don't need to do away with porn altogether in order to deal with child pornography in the most effective manner we can find without completely crapping on the Constitution. Similarly, a bar found to be in violation of the relevant alcohol laws will be penalized and potentially lose its liquor license.And yet we all know these are ineffective. People get around them all the time. You and I both know the tricks and have since we were 14.
Don't they, though? It seems that your concern with alcoholics is less with the fact that they are alcoholics and more with the fact that they are dangerous and often do things that are harmful to themselves and others. If we can regulate this behavior much as we can regulate child pornography, how is that not addressing your issue? If you're taking issue with alcoholism and not their behavior, then we're back at square one with obese people and McDonalds. Or how about people who chronically spend on their credit cards? Gamblers?Furthermore, even if there are some regulations, they do not address my primary concern - not social drinkers, but alcoholics. That's the issue here.
So why is it that every time we have a conversation in here about drugs (there have been a few), every young person who is opposed to them comes in spouting every urban myth in the book about them and their effects? I seem to recall someone very recently purporting that cocaine caused people to go out of control and commit acts of violence, and that cocaine was laced with gasoline. Neither are true, but both are commonly talked about during drug education. I should know, I was educated on drugs in the US public education system not 8 years ago. A few years after that I discovered from first hand experience that 80% of everything I was told was either complete BS or so exaggerated as to make me realize what a crock the propaganda was to begin with. You call that effective? Part of the reason that I experimented with so many drugs, Garbad, was that I was curious and wanted to know for myself, and since no one would tell me the truth about them, I found out on my own.Why does it follow if something is illegal, we cannot educate people about it? This is the secondary thrust of the war on drugs. And like I said, perhaps the most critical part.
Principal difference in all three of these cases. In each, someone is inherently harmed. You cannot photograph a child newd or engaging in sexual acts without causing them some sort of psychological harm, and it often has far worse implications than just some mental issues. You can't steal from someone without violating their right to property ownership, and you can't murder someone without depriving them of their basic right to live.Child porn.
Well if we want to get into substances, we can, but it's going to open a whole new can of worms. And part of the reason I want to steer clear of drugs is that the misinformation campaign the government has waged against drugs has attached a stigma to drugs such that the moment someone hears the word, they immediately picture a deviant who murders, steals, vandalizes, and generally lacks any scrap of moral fiber. If we start wading into that way, I'm allowing you to make alcohol guilty by association, which I think its not. There are too many other sides to alcohol. I don't want to go so far as to call distillery an art, but honestly, it is. If you've never enjoyed a fine scotch, a really nice wine, or even had a well-brewed beer, you won't know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, you know exactly what I mean.The list goes on and on. Many antisocial behaviors have been banned to the benefit of all. If you meant specific substances, its hard to discuss them without going into illegal drugs (which you said not to) or prohibition. I suppose we could talk about medicine, but thats not exactly relevant. Clarify for me what exactly you meant by this.
Ok, lets just ignore that whole line of thinking. It is probably too based in lawyerthink to apply here.DrunkCajun said:So we're banning driving altogether now? Can you see the problems with that?
I am sorry you recieved faulty education. One instance does not mean it must be that way though. You implied if something is banned, people will automatically be less informed. This does not have to be the case. It is possible for something to be illegal and still inform people about it.I should know, I was educated on drugs in the US public education system not 8 years ago.
Yes, but again they don't address my primary concern -- the social and economic damage by excessive alcohol abuse.DrunkCajun said:Similarly, a bar found to be in violation of the relevant alcohol laws will be penalized and potentially lose its liquor license.
Yes, as I have tried to say several times I don't care about social drinking. My point is:It seems that your concern with alcoholics is less with the fact that they are alcoholics and more with the fact that they are dangerous and often do things that are harmful to themselves and others.