Poll: Alcoholics?

Which are you?

  • Left Wing.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Right Wing.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither/ don't know etc.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Given the context of your question, or perhaps the timing, I assumed, and not wrongfully so in my opinion, that you were taking the Garby position and trying to prove that the mere existence of alcohol on this planet was the root of all evils that occur here.

Given the fact that EVERY time I wind up in a discussion about alcohol in the OTF, I'm automatically labelled, judged, discredited, and all sorts of other fun things, yes, I get VERY defensive.
 

Moosashi

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm on your side DC, and I don't even drink that much.

Garbad, though you deny it, you're still doing a quantitative cost/benefit. You say: Alcohol harms X number of people, or plays a role in X number of crimes while having Y benefit to society where Y = 0. X > Y, therefore, must legislate ban. The problem is there is no way to objectively assess the benefit of alcohol to society. In fact, there is no way to objectively assess the benefit of any leisure activity, only the harm any activity could cause by correlation with societal ills that are universally agreed to be bad. So by that logic, you must condemn all activities that don't have a quantifiable benefit, because any such activity must have SOME adverse effect somewhere on someone, which can be quantified using the type of statistics you used. If you try to set some limit on the degree of ill effect necessary for banning, you must do so arbitrarily and anyone may disagree with you for equally arbitrary reasons and be in no less strong a position.

Since the vast majority of drinkers enjoy alcohol safely and responsibly (something which your statistics ignore), the conservative (not in the political sense), pro-liberty stance would be to oppose a ban on alcohol.

Let me return to the questionability of your statistics. They may be perfectly accurate, and I believe they are at least approximately on target, but they only show a correlation, not a causation. There is no way to tell what proportion of crime or mishap would have still occurred without alcohol in the mix. Therefore there is no reason to dismiss other correlations you might be able to find. What if violent crime was correlated with the race of the perpetrator? Do we ban a race?

I think you should have a little more to go on before you advocate relieving me of my rights.
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
Garbad.

I hate your idea. We already have sin taxes on alcohol, and we have strict laws that very harshly punish those that drink and drive.

I also have two major political parties that get in my face and try to impose their standards of moral behavior on me as it is. I don't need them taking away my beer.

this may not be the most intelectual argument, but if you were to propose it to everyone in america, it's prolly what you'd hear the most.

**** that!
 

Necrolestes

Diabloii.Net Member
With tongue firmly in cheek, we proudly present...

MixedVariety said:
Is there one single, practical advantage or benefit to being an alcoholic? (Note as before that I am not asking of what use is alcohol, but alcoholism). I can think of a whole list of disadvantages.

Doesn't the risk of falling into that category of disadvantages make it at least worth considering not using alcohol in the first place? Or do you believe a person really doesn't experience life until they get a good ole drunk or two on?

Curious.
At autopsy, anyone who was an alcoholic has their livers shot to hell but their arteries are clean as a whistle (alcohol cleans up oxidized lipids that form plaques in blood vessels). So I guess an advantage is that as an alcoholic, you won't ever get a heart attack. Sure, your liver fails and your pancreas dies but hey, at least you didn't get an infarction, huh?
 

DaviddeJong

Diabloii.Net Member
Alcoholism

There were some good points made (earlier in the thread) about the relation between alcohol-addiction and alcoholism. I totally missed that aspect:

I think (binge-)drinking isn't that bad as long as you know you can stay away from it (and actually do so from time to time, if only to prove it to yourself). It may or may not fall under the category "alcoholism"; being addicted is a lot worse!

Although the negatives (liverfailure and Korsakov) far outweigh the positives (clean vains and red-wine-reduced-hart-attack-risk), I usually have a great time drinking beer with my friends and I will continue to do so in the future.

Thanks for all the replies.....

David.
 
DrunkCajun said:
Given the context of your question, or perhaps the timing, I assumed, and not wrongfully so in my opinion, that you were taking the Garby position and trying to prove that the mere existence of alcohol on this planet was the root of all evils that occur here.

Given the fact that EVERY time I wind up in a discussion about alcohol in the OTF, I'm automatically labelled, judged, discredited, and all sorts of other fun things, yes, I get VERY defensive.
I'm not so foolish as to believe that it is alcohol, and not weak character traits, that cause the evils that occur on this planet. Alcohol, in and of itself, is merely a molecule that does certain things in certain circumstances; without a human agency to actually abuse it, it is quite benign.

What is it you feel you have to defend? My position on general alcohol usage is pretty clear, I thought. If you play by the rules, keep it in check, keep it from behind the driver's seat and don't inflict it on others, I don't care if you want to give yourself an ethanol enema. I have not once remarked that you aren't playing by those rules; you seem to be doing fine, so chill, baby.

As a side note, your concerns about being automatically labelled are genuine. As I've pointed out before (and you have yourself) your name labels you very clearly, if perhaps inaccurately.

Necrolestes, thank you for the informative answer; that is exactly what I was looking for. There is actually a positive side effect of alcohol abuse; unfortunately, it seems it cannot be enjoyed to its fullest before death.
 

djIgneo

Diabloii.Net Member
One thing I'd like to point out is that Alcohol has been a part of society since we remember. We have tried banning it before, and that doesn't seem to be the best answer. Perhaps better awareness or education about it is in order. I am against completely banning something deeming it the source of a host of problems, because reality is rarely so cut-and-dried.

Medical studies have shown sleep deprivation is worse or equal to alcohol for driving accidents. Should we impose laws about getting legally-approved "proper" amounts of sleep every night or should we educate people about the risks associated with it? How about writing tickets for driving while tired? I'm sure sleep-deprived people are less productive than people with ample amounts of sleep. Do you see where I'm going here?
 

Darnoc

Diabloii.Net Member
Garbad I understand your logic about alcohol abuse and the death and distruction it inflicts. The only problem with reinstituting the prohibition is that the death and distruction would be the same, if not worse, it would just be more intentional because making it illegal will not stop people from drinking, and will only make organized crime more powerful again.

On the other side of the discussion, yes alcohol will destroy your liver, pancreas, etc. if you abuse alcohol regularly. Moderate to low use does not harm these organs and benefits from alcohol with regards to the heart can only be derived consuming these low levels.

On an interesting note, I saw an article from England about a hit-and-run incident where an elderly man crossing the streetwas struck by a drunk driver. The man was rushed to the emergency room to check for injuries, it turns out he was okay besides a sprained leg and stratches, etc. but his blood alcohol level was .94! I believe death is possible at a blood alcohol level of like .3-.4
 
Darnoc said:
On an interesting note, I saw an article from England about a hit-and-run incident where an elderly man crossing the streetwas struck by a drunk driver. The man was rushed to the emergency room to check for injuries, it turns out he was okay besides a sprained leg and stratches, etc. but his blood alcohol level was .94! I believe death is possible at a blood alcohol level of like .3-.4
It's not uncommon for someone intoxicated to walk away from an accident where others have suffered life-threatening or ending injuries. Alcohol's effects on your reactions also slow down your instinct to grab on and tighten your muscles when an accident occurs. As a result, you're loose and flop like a rag doll, so instead of breaking, tearing, etc, you suffer only the injuries sustained from whatever physically hits you. Drunk drivers have in more than one case gotten up after being thrown through their own windshield and walked away from an accident because of this phenomenon, or so I've read.

Moral of the story, if you're going to be out drinking at bars and taking a cab home, get as drunk as possible. You never know when your cab will get hammered by a drunk driver, so best not to take chances and ride in a car sober when you don't have to. :thumbsup:
 

Darnoc

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
It's not uncommon for someone intoxicated to walk away from an accident where others have suffered life-threatening or ending injuries. Alcohol's effects on your reactions also slow down your instinct to grab on and tighten your muscles when an accident occurs. As a result, you're loose and flop like a rag doll, so instead of breaking, tearing, etc, you suffer only the injuries sustained from whatever physically hits you. Drunk drivers have in more than one case gotten up after being thrown through their own windshield and walked away from an accident because of this phenomenon, or so I've read.

Moral of the story, if you're going to be out drinking at bars and taking a cab home, get as drunk as possible. You never know when your cab will get hammered by a drunk driver, so best not to take chances and ride in a car sober when you don't have to. :thumbsup:
DC-

That is freaking hilarious! Gotta remember that :)

My point was that its amazing the guys alive at all with his blood alcohol level though..
 

Freemason

Banned
Hello, my name is Freemason and I'm not an alcoholic. Two beers a day or the occasional quadruple rum and coke (just briefly show it the coke) doesn't make one an alcoholic.

BTW, anybody who gets drunk off Jagermeister DESERVES the hangover from it. I use Jager to dull a toothache. It's too nasty for anything other than medicinal uses. If you're going to get drunk, don't drink rotgut. Sheesh. 6,000 years of making alcohol and people still havent' figured that one out...
 
Garbad_the_Weak said:
I never said you were an addict. But I did ask you for a reason why the horrible price of alcohol abuse, borne primarily by nonabusers, is worth paying.

And as I have said several times, I don't care if people want to use alcohol. This is not a moral issue to me. If alcohol use didn't waste money, contribute to crime, and cost innocent lives I wouldn't care if people drank themselves to sleep 7 days a week. But it does, and I am opposed to it.

Garbad
The Volstead Act contributed more to organized crime and peoples misery.

The only thing the "war on drugs" is doing is making the mob wealthier and more powerful.

No matter what you do, people are gonna drink, do drugs and pay for sexual favors. Might as well legalize it and take it away from the mob.
 

djIgneo

Diabloii.Net Member
Nastie_Bowie said:
No matter what you do, people are gonna drink, do drugs and pay for sexual favors.
True. The only variant seems to be the amount of people doing it.
Nastie_Bowie said:
Might as well legalize it and take it away from the mob.
False. People are going to murder regardless of law but that doesn't rationalize legalizing it.
 
djIgneo said:
True. The only variant seems to be the amount of people doing it.
False. The variance in drug quality, purity, and whether or not it is actually the drug it is alleged to be is a constant variant in the illegal drug market, making drug consumption exponentially more dangerous than it would be were it regulated by the federal government. Moreover, when someone does overdose, the fear of going to prison or being associated with the person overdosing has a chilling effect on the willingness to seek professional aid, likely contributing immensely to the number of drug-related deaths we see every year.
 

djIgneo

Diabloii.Net Member
DC:
What? The subject was people doing things regardless of laws. I said the only thing that varies is the extent of who does it. You pointed to influencial factors that affect the number of people who choose to partake in illegal drugs. While your statement was true it did not make mine false.

In other words:
The only variant [in regards to people drinking, doing drugs, and paying for sexual favors] is the amount of people doing it.

The amounts and types of drugs and their availability only affect the number of people doing it, which is what I said.
 
Top