Why is alcohol legal ?

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Young people seem to live more virtual lives than in-person lives now.

So, less likely to drive stoned and hit an abutment; more likely to die virgins....

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, less likely to drive stoned and hit an abutment; more likely to die virgins....

Whether they are doing it stoned or otherwise, I've no idea.

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

Interesting but then again 4 years ago the polls were showing that Labor would shit  the elections in. They didn't. They lost.

And from your link..................

How are the data collected

"Every three years, school students in Western Australia are surveyed to find out about their drug use in the Australian School Students Alcohol and Drug Survey.

They are asked about alcohol, tobacco, other illicit and licit drug use, how much they use, how they use and their attitudes to alcohol and other drug use."

While WA is our largest state, it is also the most sparsely populated. 2.7 million.

I also notice no results re illegal drugs. And finally, it is confined to school students.

 

 

The point was referring to your assertion of it being a social necessity. If the future generation's uptake of alcohol is declining then it means it has not basis in fact that it is a social necessity. Your assertion is reflective of a time and attitude  that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to upcoming generations. C'est la vie

Edited May 11, 2022 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The point was referring to your assertion of it being a social necessity

That wasn't so much an assertion as a dig at Beecee. Sorry - a skinny young man with no mask came to fix the satellite dish today; my internet is back in full operation and I'm a little drunk on streaming old BBC productions.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The point was referring to your assertion of it being a social necessity. If the future generation's uptake of alcohol is declining then it means it has not basis in fact that it is a social necessity. Your assertion is reflective of a time and attitude  that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to upcoming generations. C'est la vie

I recognised the point you were making. My point was that the poll was not necessarily an accurate account of the reality of the situation. 

[Peterkin]

But what if it is?

The kids are never exactly where we think they are, any more than we were where our parents expected us to be.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

But what if it is?

The kids are never exactly where we think they are, any more than we were where our parents expected us to be.

They were school kids, and probably did do the majority of what their parents expected.

But kids leave school and then are essentially not under parental control.  

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That wasn't so much an assertion as a dig at Beecee. 

Perhaps you need to confront the other details and evidence that I have posted, rather then having a dig at people? I won't though give you any neg rep, despite that means being thrown around again. 

To repeat myself again, this discussion seems to have shown that when one crosses a certain "political line" or have themselves shown weakness in dabbling in illegal drugs, that it will draw their wrath and a hoarde of neg votes. 13 or so in the last three or so days!!! 😄

That's actually sad, and a poor reflection on some.

 Thankfully the general moral standards of my society, will never see the ignorant banning of alcohol, nor the legitimising of any other drug already on the illegal list, for the reasons given. And that is what matters most and what concerns me. 

And yet we still have that furphy being pushed by those that like having a dig at people, that  Governments should not prohibit you from doing what you want, despite the chances of it being harmful to you. That strangely sounds a lot like Jordan Peterson and Trump.

I certainly prefer a world where reasonable social government control over society continues as is...the likes of universal health care, compulsory superannutaion, etc rather then the society as proposed by those rednecks that invaded the White House.

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

To repeat myself again, this discussion seems to have shown that when one crosses a certain "political line" or have themselves shown weakness in dabbling in illegal drugs, that it will draw their wrath and a hoarde of neg votes. 13 or so in the last three or so days!!! 😄

That's actually sad, and a poor reflection on some.

Indeed, here's another -1 for your collection; the sad thing is, despite that and all the reasonable argument's presented, you can't even concieve of the possibility that you may be wrong.

So instead you condemn everyone that doesn't conform to your standard's, presumably including your loved one's. 

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Thankfully the general moral standards of my society, will never see the ignorant banning of alcohol, nor the legitimising of any other drug already on the illegal list, for the reasons given. And that is what matters most and what concerns me.

Society is only allowed to use the drug that you prefer? 

[Peterkin]

He's not alone. Most Government officials and judges are paternalistic: if they were not before, the job makes them so. Political power doesn't always corrupt; often it just convinces ordinarily intelligent people that they are wise. They want what's best for us; they often sincerely believe they know better what's good for us than we know ourselves. And since they cannot all agree among themselves what that is, they make piecemeal, lopsided, unenforceable laws, and waste a huge amount of the polity's resources in half-assed attempts to slap the polity into their notion of good behaviour.

[TheVat]

Dayum!  Plus one!

This thread generally seems to keep circling on evidence for various positives and negatives of drugs without delving into the philosophic issues enough, i.e. it's an ethics forum, and we should consider the bigger questions of personal freedom and autonomy where altering our consciousness and endorphins is concerned.  FFS, any drug is potentially dangerous.  The question is, as Peterkin homed in on, if we let paternalistic or "nanny" policies run our lives and mediate our personal seeking for what's good or bad for our little brains, biochemically or otherwise.  Cellphones/social media might be, currently, the most harmful addiction on the planet, so we could just as well look at how they affect young people now and what laws should apply.  

We need experts, professionals in the cognitive sciences, not politicians, to address these addictions and help shed light on them.

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

We need experts, professionals in the cognitive sciences, not politicians, to address these addictions and help shed light on them.

Agreed. Couple of problems with that: One - In the political organization of some countries, lobbying - by economic, militaristic and religious factions - holds more sway than scientific expertise does. Politicians would make more sound decisions if they only had expert advisors' and constituents' voice in their ears.  Two - as to the effects of electronic media, the experts have not (afaik) reached a consensus on television and video games, let alone ubiquitous cellphone use and virtual social networks. (This is not simple! And Covid doesn't help.)

Philosophically, too, we have far too much diversity to reach a consensus. Very few nations, anymore, have a single, consistent world-view. (I blame St. Paul and Descartes -- but then, they're my personal whipping-boys from way back.) That's another reason it's so difficult for any government to represent a national stand on any issue.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Peterkin
type

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Agreed. Couple of problems with that: One - In the political organization of some countries, lobbying - by economic, militaristic and religious factions - holds more sway than scientific expertise does. Politicians would make more sound decisions if they only had expert advisors' and constituents' voice in their ears.  Two - as to the effects of electronic media, the experts have not (afaik) reached a consensus on television and video games, let alone ubiquitous cellphone use and virtual social networks. (This is not simple! And Covid doesn't help.)

 

Yes, I'm aware of the obstacles in having scientific expertise inform policy.  Possibly every member of this forum is aware.  (grin)  I was expressing a wish, not suggesting that anti-scientism and post-truth memes will go away anytime soon.  Regarding cellphone addiction, there does seem to be a growing consensus, insofar as the young folks are concerned, i.e. the cohort that averages nine hours a day on their smartphones.  If we have a thread that more fits those problems, I can probably link some research (the documentary, "The Social Dilemma," is a good jumping-off point to get a sense of the problem).  Suffice it to say that gigantic corporate forces of the social media variety are going to push back hard against the data showing cognitive and psychological problems arising from their coded-to-be-addictive algorithms.  

And, my guess is this particular addiction, where the tender and growing minds and personalities of teens are concerned, will make all of our legal and illegal drug cornucopia look like a tiny bowl of salty cashews by comparison.  But I fear I'm taking this off on a tangent.  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.  But I'm still evolving on that one.  

 

 

[Peterkin]

55 minutes 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. 

Amen!

[CharonY]

1 hour 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.  But I'm still evolving on that one.  

That is broadly the conclusion that the medical community mostly has come around to. Basically re-allocating resources that are used for legal enforcement towards is likely to improve overall public health, relative to criminalization. Moreover, some advocate going a step further toward legalization (depending on how things are handled in various jurisdictions), not for broad commercial distribution, but in order to provide safe supplies of certain drugs to combat overdoses. The latter was mostly forced by the opioid epidemic, where harm prevention is now considered more critical (as criminal persecution did pretty much nothing to improve the situation).

It is tricky business and also at the intersection between public health, legal challenges and moral judgement. Drug policies in the past were often passed based on moral judgement, but research has shown that it simply does not improve public health.

To spin it positively, we should want a situation where everyone has access to help to get rid of addictions without stigma or prejudice (or fear of legal retribution), where inevitable drug use is at low levels but using safe substances and ideally in a controlled environment. This includes but should not be exclusive to alcohol.

[MigL]

This thread has certainlly wondered about a bit.
From alcohol legality, to other recreational drug use, onto addictions, including social media/technology, and even to Government enabling.

The simple reason alcohol is still legal ( the OP ) is that it is preferred by a vast majority of people.
And 'majority rules' is one one criteria for social laws.
( whether it should or shouldn't be, is a different matter )

 

And here I go again ...

46 minutes ago, CharonY said:

To spin it positively, we should want a situation where everyone has access to help to get rid of addictions without stigma or prejudice (or fear of legal retribution), where inevitable drug use is at low levels but using safe substances and ideally in a controlled environment.

This all sounds very noble and 'woke', but people make bad decisions in life, like not stopping at a Stop sign, and killing someone. Or having a gun while involved in an argument, and shooting someone. Or ordering your armed forces to invade a sovereign country for the purpose of de-Nazification.
Yet, for cases where illegal drug ( and alcohol ) use lead to criminal activity, and violent crimes against society, there should be no stigma/prejuudice or retribution ?
We should just give up trying to stop it, give them a hug, and send them on their merry way, without the right to react to their actions ?

I'm sorry, but if something is known to be illegal, until it is actually made legal by society you don't get a 'special' area where you can do it with no repercussions.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by MigL

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, here's another -1 for your collection; the sad thing is, despite that and all the reasonable argument's presented, you can't even concieve of the possibility that you may be wrong.

So instead you condemn everyone that doesn't conform to your standard's, presumably including your loved one's. 

No problem with the -1, you have always liked playing games and avoiding questions and facts with personal unworkable, philosophical nonsense...you knoq, like, we should have no jails, no evil exists in society, Hitler deserving sympathy etc etc.

On the subject of considering I maybe wrong, sure there's a chance, but n one has yet shown me that. In the meantime, thankfully my views align with the democratic society of which I am apart. And that's really the crux of the matter and what appears to be eating at you. 🥱

Let me reiterate again, 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.

  

Edited May 11, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm sorry, but if something is known to be illegal, until it is actually made legal by society you don't get a 'special' area where you can do it with no repercussions.

Exactly right! This is why I never give my sweetheart more than 50 pounds of chocolate in Idaho or pay my one armed piano players to perform in Iowa. Finally, when I travel on business to New York, I never wear my slippers after 10pm. 🙄

 

https://online.olivet.edu/news/united-states-crazy-laws

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Society is only allowed to use the drug that you prefer? 

No, arse about face. I prefer the drug that society already dictates as a social necessity in all walks of life in any reasonable democratic westernised society. 

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm sorry, but if something is known to be illegal, until it is actually made legal by society you don't get a 'special' area where you can do it with no repercussions.

 

Well, except for recreational use of marijruhanna in 18 states and Washington D.C., even though it is still illegal at the federal level.

[CharonY]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet, for cases where illegal drug ( and alcohol ) use lead to criminal activity, and violent crimes against society, there should be no stigma/prejuudice or retribution ?

It is not a matter of being woke, but rather which outcome you prefer. If you want your moral outrage satiated and punish folks for bad choices (as we did in the past) then we just have to live with more deaths and often also associated crime. If we want to fix it, the public health option seems to be the best way forward, but we would need to forgo some of our moral judgement in exchange.

 

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

We should just give up trying to stop it, give them a hug, and send them on their merry way, without the right to react to their actions ?

Consider punishing does nothing to reduce drug use I am not sure what such policy do except makes us feel better about not taking drugs and feel superior to those who do. I am looking at the issue entirely from the viewpoint of reducing public health risks. You may call that woke, but I call it sensible.

I.e. if something works it works and I do not care much regarding the ideology behind it.

 

[Peterkin]

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm sorry, but if something is known to be illegal, until it is actually made legal by society you don't get a 'special' area where you can do it with no repercussions.

Yes, we do, and have for some time. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685449/

Quote

Clinical question

Do supervised injection sites (SISs) reduce mortality, hospitalizations, ambulance calls, or disease transmission?

Bottom line

Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years [PYs]), 67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections. Effects on hospitalizations are unknown.

 

[TheVat]

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

(...)

Yet, for cases where illegal drug ( and alcohol ) use lead to criminal activity, and violent crimes against society, there should be no stigma/prejudice or retribution ?
We should just give up trying to stop it, give them a hug, and send them on their merry way, without the right to react to their actions ?

 

 

Isn't most illegal activity around drug use a result of the drugs being illegal in the first place?  If an addict can go to a safe and secure location to obtain pure, inspected drugs and hygienic delivery systems, without stigma, where will the crime come from?  No need to mug someone for quick cash or fenceable goods, to buy your next fix from a dealer.  No need for rival gangs to shoot each other over streetcorner turf.  No cartels dumping bodies in the desert.  Vast improvement, really, to legalize use and production (for clinical use, or in controlled facilities as described above).  

Edited May 11, 2022 by TheVat
Cpwjtir

[beecee]

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

This thread has certainlly wondered about a bit.
From alcohol legality, to other recreational drug use, onto addictions, including social media/technology, and even to Government enabling.

The simple reason alcohol is still legal ( the OP ) is that it is preferred by a vast majority of people.
And 'majority rules' is one one criteria for social laws.
( whether it should or shouldn't be, is a different matter )

I'm sorry, but if something is known to be illegal, until it is actually made legal by society you don't get a 'special' area where you can do it with no repercussions.

Totally agree. Also as I mentioned yesterday, at least in Australia, we have a government universal health scheme financed by a percentage of tax but covering all of society until one kicks the bucket. We also have a compulsory superannuation scheme to finance individuals and families in retirement. Both made law by a left of centre socialist leaning government, and both now so evidently beneficial to all of society, that they are accepted across the board. Only a Jordan Peterson clone would/could deny that government control, regulations and laws should be non existent.

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

  No need to mug someone for quick cash or fenceable goods, to buy your next fix from a dealer.  No need for rival gangs to shoot each other over streetcorner turf.  No cartels dumping bodies in the desert.  Vast improvement, really, to legalize use and production.  

Are you suggesting that muggings and other vicitm crimes would cease if illegal drugs were made legal?

We currently have a "gang war" in Sydney (opposing bikie gangs) that has prompted the authorities to form a task force to handle these criminals. They are now getting right up in their faces, conducting raids, arresting all and sundry in these opposing groups on suspicion, and confiscating vast amounts of cash and weapons in the process. It would be great to save the police tash force the time and effort and let them kill each other off, except for one thing...inevitably some innocent bystander could be killed. That of course is unaceptable and why they are being hounded at every opportunity.

Edited May 11, 2022 by beecee

[CharonY]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

And 'majority rules' is one one criteria for social laws.

Well, it is part of the political process and which is why cannabis is being legalized. Note that becee's argument for alcohol was based on majority rule (with a focus on Western society) but seemingly was more against legalization of cannabis, using the same criterion (~90% in USA and Canada were for legalization of cannabis for medical and recreational use, over 60% for recreational use in the US and a fair bit higher in Canada prior to legalization).

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, it is part of the political process and which is why cannabis is being legalized. Note that becee's argument for alcohol was based on majority rule (with a focus on Western society) 

And simply an accepted part of society protocol acceptance and necessity. That is the crux of my argument with any silly suggestion of trying to ban alcohol. 

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

but seemingly was more against legalization of cannabis, using the same criterion (~90% in USA and Canada were for legalization of cannabis for medical and recreational use, over 60% for recreational use in the US and a fair bit higher in Canada prior to legalization).

Unlike others here, you have put a concise argument for decriminalising cannibis and even making it legal. The figures in Australia are  "Attitudes towards legalising recreational cannabis in Australia have shifted over the last decade, according to the NDSHS more Australians now support legalisation of cannabis than remain opposed; 41% of Australians now support the legalisation of cannabis, 37% remain opposed, and 22% are undecided". WIKI

I would though question the poll again, on the premise of whether those taking part were thinking decriminalisation or making it legal. My opinion remains as is though, and I simply don't accept that making another mind altering drug freely available is not the way to go.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

It is tricky business and also at the intersection between public health, legal challenges and moral judgement. Drug policies in the past were often passed based on moral judgement, but research has shown that it simply does not improve public health.

And possibly neither will anything else.