Fuck DuWayne Bridges (Hooray Gourmet Bottle Bill)

[Vandy Vol]

Alcohol, even when used as intended, causes impairment.

Impairment by itself doesn't kill anyone.  It's the choice to do something while impaired that can result in someone's death.

Unless you're suggesting that alcohol, upon the very first sip, makes people go certifiably insane and unable to control their actions, then you still have to address this issue of choice.

[Kaos]

When I stay up until 2am playing videogames, I've chosen impairment at work the next day. 

Imbibing alcohol does not automatically cause drastic, irrational accidents to occur.  For example, I can drink three glasses of wine and still be in control of my actions.  I can drink 40oz of beer and still be in control of my actions.   I am still well-aware at that point that I need to hand my keys to somebody sober. 

It's not impairment that makes something unnecessary.   

And there's the fucking problem in a nutshell. 

You THINK you can.  But you're wrong. 

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm merely asking why it's necessary.  And no one can ever, ever, ever answer that. 

It's not. 

And since it kills people (proven), addicts them (proven), destroys families and careers (proven) I just have to wonder why it's so vehemently defended. 

There's a lot that's unnecessary, but we still choose to partake. 

Football is unnecessary.  It often leads to injuries, requires a tremendous amount of time away from home, encourages dissension among citizens, and promotes violence. 

[Kaos]

Impairment by itself doesn't kill anyone.  It's the choice to do something while impaired that can result in someone's death.

Unless you're suggesting that alcohol, upon the very first sip, makes people go certifiably insane and unable to control their actions, then you still have to address this issue of choice.

I don't have to address shit until somebody (after, what, 10 years now?) gives me some legitimate benefit that alcohol provides that in any way outweighs the damage it causes. 

Still waiting.

I'll hang up and listen. 

[Kaos]

There's a lot that's unnecessary, but we still choose to partake. 

Football is unnecessary.  It often leads to injuries, requires a tremendous amount of time away from home, encourages dissension among citizens, and promotes violence.

When going to a football game for too long causes you to lose control of your bodily functions, pass out and endanger yourself and others then we can talk. 

Until then I'll be waiting on a benefit of alcohol. 

(Hint: There isn't one)

[Townhallsavoy]

And there's the fucking problem in a nutshell. 

You THINK you can.  But you're wrong.

What do you mean? 

Are you saying I cannot by any means give my keys away? 

I've never driven drunk.  I've never made out or had sex with anyone besides my wife after drinking.  I've never gotten into a fight because of alcohol.  I've never made any of these poor decisions you're referring because of alcohol. 

[Townhallsavoy]

I don't have to address shit until somebody (after, what, 10 years now?) gives me some legitimate benefit that alcohol provides that in any way outweighs the damage it causes. 

Still waiting.

I'll hang up and listen.

Oh is that what you're waiting on?

Over the last five years, the health benefits of moderate drinking have been widely celebrated in the headlines. To those who think everything enjoyable must be bad for you, this news might seem like a dream come true.

Of course, there are many caveats - and these studies don't indicate that teetotalers should take up drinking or that infrequent drinkers should start drinking more. The operative word here is drinking in moderation.

Studies show, for example, that health benefits only come with moderate drinking and are greatest for older men. And even moderate drinking is not recommended for women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or for people who are under 21.

The strongest medical evidence exists for the link between moderate drinking and a reduced risk of heart disease.

Dr. Kenneth Mukamal, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, was the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine study examining the roles of drinking patterns and heart disease that found, after 12 year of follow-up, that men who consumed alcohol between three and seven days a week had fewer heart attacks than men who drank once a week.

Below, Mukamal discusses the risk and benefits of moderate drinking.

Do we know why moderate drinking lowers heart disease risk? We think that a lot of the benefits of alcohol are on the blood vessels and on blockages in the arteries to the heart and to the brain. This might be related to alcohol's effect on the good cholesterol, the HDL cholesterol.

In fact, alcohol affects HDL levels just about as strongly as any other lifestyle factor. People also think that alcohol may lower heart attack risk by acting as a blood thinner.

What are some of the other health benefits associated with moderate drinking? A wide variety of health effects have been attributed to moderate drinking. A lower risk of diabetes has been seen in women and men.

There actually have been experiments done in which alcohol was administered over a couple of months to people without diabetes. In those studies, most of which have been conducted in women interestingly, it looks like moderate drinking improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.

It may actually lower insulin levels altogether and may prevent diabetes through that mechanism.

More recently we've done some work on moderate drinking and dementia. We looked at a group of older adults in the United States - average age was in the mid-70s - and found a reduced risk.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/3968.php

Plus this section of Harvard's website:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/alcohol-full-story/index.html

[Vandy Vol]

I don't have to address shit until somebody (after, what, 10 years now?) gives me some legitimate benefit that alcohol provides that in any way outweighs the damage it causes.

There doesn't have to be a benefit to a product in order for it to be legal or morally acceptable.  If researchers want to develop a food that has no taste and absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever, it would have no benefit, yet there would be no legitimate reason to make it illegal or otherwise be against it morally.  If people choose to consume something that is useless, that should be their choice.

This means that the issue boils down to whether it's inherently dangerous and can not be used responsibly.  If it can be used responsibly without harm to others, then this means that one must make a choice to use it irresponsibly.  Why take away the responsible choices of others just because a portion of society can not make those same responsible choices?

[Townhallsavoy]

There doesn't have to be a benefit to a product in order for it to be legal or morally acceptable.  If researchers want to develop a food that has no taste and absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever, it would have no benefit, yet there would be no legitimate reason to make it illegal or otherwise be against it morally.  If people choose to consume something that is useless, that should be their choice.

This means that the issue boils down to whether it's inherently dangerous and can not be used responsibly.  If it can be used responsibly without harm to others, then this means that one must make a choice to use it irresponsibly.  Why take away the responsible choices of others just because a portion of society can not make those same responsible choices?

The problem is that this is turning into a science thread but no one here has any statistics or science to back up their claims.

Kaos disagrees that it can be used responsibly.  As he stated earlier, he claims that one drop can be a problem.  Unless you can convince him that he is wrong with his assertion, this thread is going no where.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

And there's the fudgeing problem in a nutshell. 

You THINK you can.  But you're wrong.

Kind of like when Kaos gets behind a keyboard.  Logic, reason, and sanity fly out the window.  It's a lot like being drunk actually.  In either case the subject thinks they are a master debater, but they're really just yelling loudly "NO!!!! I'M RIGHT!!!!  YOU'RE STUPID!!!!"

[Kaos]

What do you mean? 

Are you saying I cannot by any means give my keys away? 

I've never driven drunk.  I've never made out or had sex with anyone besides my wife after drinking.  I've never gotten into a fight because of alcohol.  I've never made any of these poor decisions you're referring because of alcohol.

Congratulations.  Maybe you're the exception. 

You're like the snake handler who pulled his hand from the box unbitten and now says anybody can stick their hand in there. 

Now you just have to hope that the internal damage doesn't get you.  Since it's so good for you and all, you don't have to worry about damage to the liver or other internal organs. 

[Kaos]

Kind of like when Kaos gets behind a keyboard.  Logic, reason, and sanity fly out the window.  It's a lot like being drunk actually.  In either case the subject thinks they are a master debater, but they're really just yelling loudly "NO!!!! I'M RIGHT!!!!  YOU'RE STUPID!!!!"

THS has come the closest to answering the basic question.  He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about. 

He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links.  I can work with that.

It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.   

The rest of you?  Christ.  Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....

[AUChizad]

THS has come the closest to answering the basic question.  He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about. 

He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links.  I can work with that.

It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.   

The rest of you?  Christ.  Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....

Pretty sure I answered it almost immediately after you asked. You chose to ignore it.

Not necessarily true.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html

[AU_Tiger_2000]

THS has come the closest to answering the basic question.  He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about. 

He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links.  I can work with that.

It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.   

The rest of you?  Christ.  Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....

This is the best I could find on a quick search.  It's out of date ('07) but the gist is that the beverage industry provides a heap of jobs and a lot of money (and taxes, which is the real reason it will never be banned).

http://www.discus.org/pdf/ATT2_Economic_Contribution.pdf

It also appears to be recession proof.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121277/drinking-habits-steady-amid-recession.aspx

[Vandy Vol]

THS has come the closest to answering the basic question.  He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about. 

He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links.  I can work with that.

It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.   

The rest of you?  Christ.  Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....

Here's the problem that I see.  You don't want to stick to one argument.  When someone appropriately addresses one, you switch to the other and make yourself a moving target.  Of course we're going to whiff when someone snatches the ball away before it gets to home plate.

The two arguments that you keep flip-flopping between are A.) Alcohol has no benefit, and B.) Alcohol harms people other than those who consume it.  When we address A, you cite B.  When we handle B, you revert back to A and claim we never addressed it.

So, to address both at once:

Just because something has no ascertainable benefit does not mean that it should be made illegal or viewed as morally reprehensible.  As I mentioned in my last post, a tasteless food void of any nutrition may have no benefit, but if someone wants to create and sell it, they should be able to do so.  The fact that something has no benefit whatsoever does not mean that it should be banned by law.  So the alleged absence of the ascertainable benefits of alcohol should have no effect on its legality.

This only leaves your other go-to argument, which is the dangerous effects of alcohol.  Every example of alcohol's harmful effects to others that you've presented have required that the drinker make a choice after consuming alcohol.  This has already been elaborated upon, but as mentioned above, you conveniently reverted back to your other stance in order to avoid addressing the issue of choice.

[Kaos]

This is the best I could find on a quick search.  It's out of date ('07) but the gist is that the beverage industry provides a heap of jobs and a lot of money (and taxes, which is the real reason it will never be banned).

http://www.discus.org/pdf/ATT2_Economic_Contribution.pdf

It also appears to be recession proof.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121277/drinking-habits-steady-amid-recession.aspx

Give not one shit about its economic value. Worst response of the day. 

We put people in jail for profiting from things proven to kill.

[AUChizad]

As I mentioned in my last post, a tasteless food void of any nutrition may have no benefit, but if someone wants to create and sell it, they should be able to do so.  The fact that something has no benefit whatsoever does not mean that it should be banned by law.  So the alleged absence of the ascertainable benefits of alcohol should have no effect on its legality.

Let alone the food doesn't have to be tasteless, because beer has a taste. A taste that people who drink beer enjoy. Or they wouldn't drink it. Unfathomable to Kaos who thinks it's terrible, but people do enjoy the taste of beer, believe it or not.

For that reason, it's no different from the Big Mac discussed before. Or a Doritos Locos taco. Or Sweet Tarts. Or whatever the hell it is that you consume with no expectation of nutritional value, but rather for the enjoyment of consuming that product.

Coffee is perhaps a better example. It tastes good, AND has the added mind-altering effect of energizing you. Beer has the exact opposite effect. It tastes good and helps you relax. But COFFEE NEVER MADE ANYONE PLOW THROUGH A CHILDRENS' HOSPITAL.

And that's to your other point. You have to use it irresponsibly for that to be an issue.

And by the way? Texting while driving can impair you from properly operating a motor vehicle. Adjusting the car radio. Eating a ham sandwich. Basically anything done simultaneously while driving makes it inherently a danger to your ability to drive. Ban ham sandwiches?

[Kaos]

You people are really bad at this. 

I've stayed in the same place. 

Booze provides no value that can offset its harm.

Same position.  Never changes.  Can't be refuted.  Your attempts to do so are puny.

I've never said it should be illegal.  If I ruled the universe it would not exist. I don't rule the universe (yet).

Asked somebody, anybody to explain why it should by showing a positive that offsets the negatives.  Nobody has.  Nobody will. 

I'm not campaigning to take your precious beer away. I find the tantrums and convoluted rationalizations used to justify that which can't be legitimately justified hilarious.  But I'm not calling for it to be illegal or saying consumption is immoral.  Those are sham arguments you created to feel better about defending the indefensible.  I definitely didnt make them.

You expect me to have sympathy because you couldn't buy beer in 55 gallon drums? Boo fucking HOO.  Suck my ass.  I'm going to celebrate because some peckerhead squandered a portion of his life agitating for larger bottles? Fuck him and his pony. 

What I've seen in this thread is exactly what I deal with on a regular basis as the usual non-drinker in social or business settings.

"you dont want a beer? You one of them religious nuts? In a program or something? Bring my man here a beer!"

If I decline it's assumed I'm some kind of intolerant prude who is trying to shit on the fun parade.  I'm viewed with suspicion.  They can't take the first no at face value. 

Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in.  I see it as insecurity.  Few respect my simple "no thanks." I almost always end up having to explain that I just don't drink.  That leads to conversations about why, the unstated suspicion that I'm looking down on the rest of them and think ilm better than they are. And then I get tapped to be the driver. 

I've heard all the justifications before.  And I dont ask the question I asked here. 

Same thing just happened.  I wish alcohol didn't exist.  That morphed into declarations that I don't get to decide, people can choose whatever they want, booze is good, I'm irrational, I can't make it illegal or declare it immoral.  Just a big mass of insecurity on your part manifested in poorly constructed arguments. 

[Kaos]

Let alone the food doesn't have to be tasteless, because beer has a taste. A taste that people who drink beer enjoy. Or they wouldn't drink it. Unfathomable to Kaos who thinks it's terrible, but people do enjoy the taste of beer, believe it or not.

For that reason, it's no different from the Big Mac discussed before. Or a Doritos Locos taco. Or Sweet Tarts. Or whatever the hell it is that you consume with no expectation of nutritional value, but rather for the enjoyment of consuming that product.

Coffee is perhaps a better example. It tastes good, AND has the added mind-altering effect of energizing you. Beer has the exact opposite effect. It tastes good and helps you relax. But COFFEE NEVER MADE ANYONE PLOW THROUGH A CHILDRENS' HOSPITAL.

And that's to your other point. You have to use it irresponsibly for that to be an issue.

And by the way? Texting while driving can impair you from properly operating a motor vehicle. Adjusting the car radio. Eating a ham sandwich. Basically anything done simultaneously while driving makes it inherently a danger to your ability to drive. Ban ham sandwiches?

I'm typing this while driving so pardon the mistakes.

Big buttload of hysterical fail here. 

If you like the taste so much drink a non-alcoholic brew. 

Solves everything. 

What? You won't?  Strike 4&.

[AUChizad]

You people are really bad at this. 

I've stayed in the same place. 

Booze provides no value that can offset its harm.

Same position.  Never changes.  Can't be refuted.  Your attempts to do so are puny.

I've never said it should be illegal.  If I ruled the universe it would not exist. I don't rule the universe (yet).

Asked somebody, anybody to explain why it should by showing a positive that offsets the negatives.  Nobody has.  Nobody will. 

I'm not campaigning to take your precious beer away. I find the tantrums and convoluted rationalizations used to justify that which can't be legitimately justified hilarious.  But I'm not calling for it to be illegal or saying consumption is immoral.  Those are sham arguments you created to feel better about defending the indefensible.  I definitely didnt make them.

You expect me to have sympathy because you couldn't buy beer in 55 gallon drums? Boo fucking HOO.  Suck my ass.  I'm going to celebrate because some peckerhead squandered a portion of his life agitating for larger bottles? Fuck him and his pony. 

What I've seen in this thread is exactly what I deal with on a regular basis as the usual non-drinker in social or business settings.

"you dont want a beer? You one of them religious nuts? In a program or something? Bring my man here a beer!"

If I decline it's assumed I'm some kind of intolerant prude who is trying to shit on the fun parade.  I'm viewed with suspicion.  They can't take the first no at face value. 

Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in.  I see it as insecurity.  Few respect my simple "no thanks." I almost always end up having to explain that I just don't drink.  That leads to conversations about why, the unstated suspicion that I'm looking down on the rest of them and think ilm better than they are. And then I get tapped to be the driver. 

I've heard all the justifications before.  And I dont ask the question I asked here. 

Same thing just happened.  I wish alcohol didn't exist.  That morphed into declarations that I don't get to decide, people can choose whatever they want, booze is good, I'm irrational, I can't make it illegal or declare it immoral.  Just a big mass of insecurity on your part manifested in poorly constructed arguments.

What do you think of vegans? When everyone at the cook-out is enjoying their delicious steak and one guy has to make a point that they don't like meat, and breaks out his salad? Does this guy think he's better than you cause he doesn't eat meat?

Same thing. Nothing to do with insecurity.