Why is alcohol legal ?

[beecee]

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

I would have thought it obvious that this was not my point.  Rather, some percent of crimes arise from drug trade and drug need, and these would decrease.  

OK, accepted.

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Isolated bits of evidence will do. One single

Government laws and prohibitions are necessary for any society to succeed and beneficial. I would have though that was obvious, but of course sometimes people are just blinkered.

Let me count the ways...traffic laws and prohibitions, DUI, compulsory super, compulsory health levies etc etc etc.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If society "dictates as a social necessity in all walks of life" then surely it would be illigal to refuse to drink alcohol.

As usual you are playing games and being condescending. The statement stands.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The very definition of an unworkable philosophy

The only unworkable societies are the one's you pretentiously push, over a few threads, as amply shown.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but I was following beecee's logic, as in, if society dictate's it's needed to allow society to work properly, then it's not unreasonable to show where that slope may lead.

Except you twist the meanings to suit your own agenda. I fully understand the dangers of excess alcohol drinking and the need for education. You also despite your pretense, should understand the acceptance of alcohol being a social necessity in all forms of life. 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, beecee said:

Let me count the ways.

No need. I asked for one single example of false propaganda to turn people against prohibitions:

On 5/11/2022 at 5:20 PM, beecee said:

Or conversely mount a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition and the furphy of government control, and some, (the more gullible) will approve of being able to do what ever we want.

I'd like to see proof that this happened.

Quote

Likewise, proof of the above....you show me your's and I'll show you mine. Remember you demanded proof, not isolated bits of evidence.

I asked for one single example of a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition.

Going back around to the enumerate laws you approve of is not the answer.

[MigL]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Coming home drunk was a violation of our rules, but if my kids were out with the car and under the influence, they could call home for a ride, 24 hours a day, with zero retribution for drinking.

That sets a good example, and is commendable.
I have done the same for my nephew on a couple of occasions.

In Canada we have the Young  Offender's Act, where young people, learning to navigate their way along the many paths of life, are not charged as adults for many crimes. People, especially the young, are allowed to learn from their mistakes.

And as has been mentioned, my attitude is make it legal, if socity wishes to do so and there is a demonstrable harm reduction, or keep it illegal.
But it is then illegal everywhere, as Safe Injection Sites would presumably only reduce harm in specific locations

[zapatos]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

And as has been mentioned, my attitude is make it legal, if socity wishes to do so and there is a demonstrable harm reduction,

I understand your position. Society though does not wish opioids to be legal, and there are a limited number of people who wish to make safe spaces legal. Those who do wish safe spaces to be legal are simply being realistic. They know people will do illegal drugs and are simply trying to mitigate the risk that addiction poses to their friends and family.

I have had several family members who were addicted to various drugs. No one wanted them to quit doing drugs more than they themselves. I would have allowed them to do drugs in my house if it meant they had a better chance of surviving long enough to finally kick the habit. One of them only lived because his mother was able to get a dose of naloxone for him, no questions asked.

I'm not saying your position is not valid, but if your goal is risk reduction, then safe places are a solution that achieves that goal.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No need. I asked for one single example of false propaganda to turn people against prohibitions:

Sorry, I misunderstood. False propaganda? sure, your own sometimes naive political ravings for example...You know about the evils of authority, and such.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I'd like to see proof that this happened.

It appears to be the position that you are advocating.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I asked for one single example of a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition.

Going back around to the enumerate laws you approve of is not the answer.

Go look and check out many of your own posts.

 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

That sets a good example, and is commendable.
I have done the same for my nephew on a couple of occasions.

Me three for my own Son...then driven him back next day to pick up his car.

[Peterkin]

47 minutes ago, beecee said:

Go look and check out many of your own posts.

How will that prove your claim?

 

49 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Sure. No problem. Now that you do understand, just bring proof - it doesn't have to be an air-tight case; just any little bit of evidence that anyone ever did

Quote

  mount a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition and the furphy of government control, and some, (the more gullible) will approve of being able to do what ever we want.

 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How will that prove your claim?

 When will you ever get over this obsession you have with proof? Or is this just more of your usual condescending?

My claim of fabricated propaganda is  highlighted in the following.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In fact, the voters mostly know only what they're told. Mount a scary enough propaganda campaign and they'll approve the prohibition of anything.

Because the road-kill of capitalism need to be punished even more than their addiction is already hurting; they need to be driven to crime, so that they can be arrested and punished again...? Or is there some lofty moral reason?

I think 'society' would rather have drugfiends sequestered anyplace, rather than on the streets where 'society' is walking and on the fire-escapes of 'society's apartments. 

 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Sure. No problem. Now that you do understand, just bring proof - it doesn't have to be an air-tight case; just any little bit of evidence that anyone ever did

See above. 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'd like to see proof that this happened.

It appears to be the position that you are advocating.

Or conversely mount a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition and the furphy of government control, and some, (the more gullible) will approve of being able to do what ever we want.

And to (shock horror!!) repeat myself again, you have openly expressed your  philosophy against government control. You see what you need to accept is that perhaps in some circumstances there maybe too  much government control. See the difference? My apologies if that sounds condescending. I have yet to see any example of it though in this thread...I fully support government control on dangerous illegal drugs, and the fact that adding more to the legal list is defeating the purpose...The same way I support government control re the other situations I have mentioned and you have side-stepped...here's somemore...mandatory vaccinations in certain industries...mandatory lockdowns when deemed necessary.

[swansont]

On 5/11/2022 at 5:59 PM, Peterkin said:

I'd like to see proof that this happened.

 

a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition and the furphy of government control, and some, (the more gullible) will approve of being able to do what ever we want.

I would think current events regarding COVID would show that propaganda about government intervention/control can lead to people screaming about freedoms. Maybe it's just more obvious to me being is the US. (though I'm not sure what furphy is or is supposed to be; it's not in my dictionary)

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Except you twist the meanings to suit your own agenda. I fully understand the dangers of excess alcohol drinking and the need for education. You also despite your pretense, should understand the acceptance of alcohol being a social necessity in all forms of life. 

I didn't twist your statement, I extended it to show where a conservative mentality could lead; and given the propensity of the elderly to become more conservative in their thinking, it's entirely reasonable to exclude them from a conversation that's got nothing to do with them; they've made it to retirement and their future entirely depends on how the youth are shepherded...

Edited May 13, 2022 by dimreepr

[swansont]

On 5/12/2022 at 8:55 AM, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but I was following beecee's logic, as in, if society dictate's it's needed to allow society to work properly, then it's not unreasonable to show where that slope may lead.

That slope, I presume, is slippery. There is a fallacy that describes this justification.

The fact that it is a fallacy means that it is indeed unreasonable.

We've had legal consumption of alcohol for centuries, through multiple cultures and countries. Where has it become mandatory? If this is such a danger, surely it's happened somewhere by now.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

That slope, I presume, is slippery. There is a fallacy that describes this justification.

The fact that it is a fallacy means that it is indeed unreasonable.

Indeed, but I just extended the argument, I haven't ridiculed it...

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where has it become mandatory? If this is such a danger, surely it's happened somewhere by now.

I haven't said it has, but surely it's clear that such thinking can lead to law's that train the young, the Hitler youth for example...

Every slope leads to the bottom, not every argument does...

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

It appears to be the position that you are advocating.

So, nothing? OK You are familiar with the point of diminishing returns? We passed it a little while ago.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I would think current events regarding COVID would show that propaganda about government intervention/control can lead to people screaming about freedoms

So there must, somewhere, be a poster or article falsely claiming that drug prohibition doesn't work. Beecee challenged the various examples given for propaganda in favour of prohibition and won't produce a counter-example. I didn't expect him to. But I also didn't expect Covid protests to be enlisted in favour of drug laws. It's a surprising ol' world.

[TheVat]

The libertarian ethos seems to underly a broad range of movements for social liberties.  Some furphy-driven, some not.   If people want something enough (maskless life, a bong, whiskey, cellphones in classrooms), they will rationalize their path towards it.  Heinlein said man is not the rational animal but the rationalizing animal.   

One question for an ethics thread is - should we let bad ideas (furphy-driven)(love the new word, thanks, Australia) progress to failure mode on their own?  IOW, are crises sometimes acceptable?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but I just extended the argument, I haven't ridiculed it...

I haven't said it has, but surely it's clear that such thinking can lead to law's that train the young, the Hitler youth for example...

Every slope leads to the bottom, not every argument does...

That Godwin-ed unexpectedly. How did legality of alcohol lead to Hitler (a prerequisite for Hitler youth), exactly?

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

We've had legal consumption of alcohol for centuries, through multiple cultures and countries. Where has it become mandatory? If this is such a danger, surely it's happened somewhere by now.

It is not really the same, but there is the issue of social pressure, where it can be difficult not to drink alcohol. In Germany drinking age starts at 16 and I still remember vividly how teachers berated me for not having a beer with the others (I did not like the taste of beer). I think the attitude might have changed and being designated driver is a good excuse nowadays. But fundamentally there was significant pressure to conformity when it came to alcohol use behaviour. 

For most other drugs peer-pressure might still have existed, but it certainly was not that pervasive and limited to fairly small groups of folks.

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

So there must, somewhere, be a poster or article falsely claiming that drug prohibition doesn't work. Beecee challenged the various examples given for propaganda in favour of prohibition and won't produce a counter-example. I didn't expect him to. But I also didn't expect Covid protests to be enlisted in favour of drug laws. It's a surprising ol' world.

Since we can see the existence of propaganda leading to people resisting a certain action in the name of freedom, how is it unreasonable to say that drug prohibition is not immune to similar manipulation?

Would false claims involved in trying to make drugs legal be a counterexample?

https://retrorevolution.com/the-top-10-reasons-marijuana-should-be-legalized/

claims that alcohol consumption drops by 50% after pot is legalized, but studies don't back this up

https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-021-00085-x

Colorado households showed a 13% average monthly decrease in purchases of all alcoholic products combined

Estimates in Washington were suggestive of an increase in spirits purchased

I also see a couple of really nebulous claims on their list, too, like cannabis leads to better relationships.

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is not really the same, but there is the issue of social pressure, where it can be difficult not to drink alcohol. In Germany drinking age starts at 16 and I still remember vividly how teachers berated me for not having a beer with the others (I did not like the taste of beer). I think the attitude might have changed and being designated driver is a good excuse nowadays. But fundamentally there was significant pressure to conformity when it came to alcohol use behaviour. 

For most other drugs peer-pressure might still have existed, but it certainly was not that pervasive and limited to fairly small groups of folks.

I pointed this out earlier - peer pressure is not part of the legal system. Yes it's there, but it's still not part of any law.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

I pointed this out earlier - peer pressure is not part of the legal system. Yes it's there, but it's still not part of any law.

Fair enough, I overlooked (or just forgot) that part. But yes, if we limit it to legal actions alone, which makes sense, it certainly is true. I do think the beecee's argument is based on social norms and pressures though, before Dim just ran with it (as he often does).

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Would false claims involved in trying to make drugs legal be a counterexample?

They wouldn't. Thank you for answering for Beecee.

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I do think the beecee's argument is based on social norms and pressures though, before Dim just ran with it (as he often does).

It seems to me that either both or neither should be taken literally, not one of each - my preference would be neither.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't twist your statement, I extended it to show where a conservative mentality could lead; and given the propensity of the elderly to become more conservative in their thinking, it's entirely reasonable to exclude them from a conversation that's got nothing to do with them; they've made it to retirement and their future entirely depends on how the youth are shepherded...

😅 You actually speak from a position of ignorance. Far from being conservative, I akways try and speak from a position of political neutrality, or perhaps irrespective of any political movement or position. As a union delegate as a young bloke, I was well in line to progress to organiser and further up the union ladder. Over time though, and not fully adherring to established union policy, I was by-passed. I have also been called a dirty rotten commo c***. And I assure you age has not diminished that. My moral standings havn't really shifted, and I still reject and abhore some of your philosophical positions, particularly on punishment, torture and of course the legality of current illegal drugs.

Instead of pontificating on my position and age, I would be more concerned with your own generally unworkable life philosophy, and that position never being able to be achieved, along of course with your condescending nature. That imo points to a wasted life. 

And of course,  for any Idiot to claim sarcastically stupidly or otherwise, that the elderly should not vote, shows the mentality of some, that believe that because they themselves  had moments of weakness in the past to dabble with this illegal crap, we should give everyone else that same choice, is selfish at best and criminal at worst. Sort of bringing as many as possible down to their level.

ps: And yes, you did twist my statement, to suit your own agenda.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I haven't said it has, but surely it's clear that such thinking can lead to law's that train the young, the Hitler youth for example...

Every slope leads to the bottom, not every argument does...

But unlike you, and your philosophy, I have some sympathy towards the Hitler youth, rather then the monster Hitler himself. 

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So there must, somewhere, be a poster or article falsely claiming that drug prohibition doesn't work. Beecee challenged the various examples given for propaganda in favour of prohibition and won't produce a counter-example. I didn't expect him to. But I also didn't expect Covid protests to be enlisted in favour of drug laws. It's a surprising ol' world.

Let me refresh your memory of how this furphy you seem so obsessed with started..

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Really, I'm just trying to find a broader perspective on the idea that nothing should be criminalized while much can be recognized as harmful and worthy of allocating therapeutic resources towards. 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Amen!

You then went on and said......

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In fact, the voters mostly know only what they're told. Mount a scary enough propaganda campaign and they'll approve the prohibition of anything.

I replied..........................

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Or conversely mount a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition and the furphy of government control, and some, (the more gullible) will approve of being able to do what ever we want.

And then your obsession started. Much of your claims against prohibition were personal thoughts and imo no more the propaganda to suit your agenda. Another relevant one was with regards to  a poll in WA confined to that state, and confined to school kids. I pointed out the short comings in that poll.

Then with regards to your's and TheVat's idea about reduced or no governments and government controls, I showed that to be the furphy of which it most certainly is......You dear Peterkin, and I, would probably not be here for a number of reasons if it were not for some form of government control or legislation. 

The furphy that  governments should not prohibit you from doing what you want, despite the chances of it being harmful to you, sounds strangely a lot like Jordan Peterson and Trump.

 I'm in favour of drug prohibition as it stands in my country. I see acohol as an accepted social necessity in all walks of life and society. I don't see any benefit of adding any other mind altering drug to that list. I could though support  decriminalisation for perhaps the milder forms such as cannibis. That's not the same as making it legal.

I challenge the various examples and articles claiming legalising of drugs that are currently illegal, as morally wrong. 

[Peterkin]

It's good to have everyone's obsessions, political histories, ignorances and agendas cleared up, innit?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They wouldn't. Thank you for answering for Beecee.

So, we can expect you from this moment on, to only comment on posts directly addressed to you?

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Fair enough, I overlooked (or just forgot) that part. But yes, if we limit it to legal actions alone, which makes sense, it certainly is true. I do think the beecee's argument is based on social norms and pressures though, before Dim just ran with it (as he often does).

Social norms (with regards to alcohol) yes. Pressures such as advertisements about "it's man's drink" and similar, probably could be. I saw somewhere where you don't like beer? That's OK, but next time, as we down under do...make sure it is VB and chilled. Pommies and other places I hear don't have it chilled. Nothing worse then a warm beer!! 😉

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It seems to me that either both or neither should be taken literally, not one of each - my preference would be neither.

And you would be entirely wrong.

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's good to have everyone's obsessions, political histories, ignorances and agendas cleared up, innit?

It's even better not to hide behind any political and/or philosophical bias. I have nothing to hide ol mate!

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have nothing to hide ol mate!

Even better!

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

 Nothing worse then a warm beer!! 😉

Aussie beer  needs to be cold to mute the taste of it.  English beer has to be made properly to be able to drink it at the temperature we do... it's not just about getting arseholed.  

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Aussie beer  needs to be cold to mute the taste of it.  English beer has to be made properly to be able to drink it at the temperature we do... it's not just about getting arseholed.  

You wish! 😁 

Full flavoured, full strength beer; the gentle fruitiness of the aroma compliments the sweet maltiness in the mouth which in turn balances perfectly with the clean hop bitterness of the finish.

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by beecee

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

You wish! 😁 

 

 

What temperature do you need to drink that at,  -14c?