More News On The Old People's War On Fun In Alabama...

[Kaos]

See, GH2001? We're not making that shit up. People actually think this way.

Missing the point, Chizzy.  

The fact is, alcohol is bad.  You're acting as if the people who oppose it should be required to have some other sort of argument when this one is, in fact, relatively sound.  Mountains of evidence -- none that you can even refute -- bears this out.  I figure most of the people who oppose it don't really think much else needs to be said.

If you're going to stick your head in a vise and turn the handle, do I really need to have any other argument than "that's going to hurt"?  

[AUChizad]

Missing the point, Chizzy.  

The fact is, alcohol is bad.  You're acting as if the people who oppose it should be required to have some other sort of argument when this one is, in fact, relatively sound.  Mountains of evidence -- none that you can even refute -- bears this out.  I figure most of the people who oppose it don't really think much else needs to be said.

If you're going to stick your head in a vise and turn the handle, do I really need to have any other argument than "that's going to hurt"?  

Motion to outlaw vice grips!

[AWK]

So the argument that alcohol is bad (which has mountains of statistical and anecdotal evidence to support it) should be tossed out because you can't buy Chuckie's Cheese Flavored Hops straight from the vat? 

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Why isn't "alcohol is bad" enough?

Because that is your OPINION, not fact.  Before you go spewing off facts about alcohol related stuff, this can be said about anything.   

Guns are bad.

Abortion is bad. 

Speeding is bad.

Cars are Bad.

God is bad. 

Religion is bad.

Etc...

Oh yeah, and there is mountains of evidence for each one of those. I think my argument alone should be enough on all those things.

[Kaos]

Because that is your OPINION, not fact.  Before you go spewing off facts about alcohol related stuff, this can be said about anything.   

Guns are bad.

Abortion is bad. 

Speeding is bad.

Cars are Bad.

God is bad. 

Religion is bad.

Etc...

Alcohol is bad is not subjective.  It's not an opinion. 

You can make arguments that all those other things are bad, but they all lack the one thing that alcohol has -- the physical and psychological addiction. 

Could the argument that "alcohol is bad" be better made?  Yeah.  But Chizad is merely taking all the evidence, all the commentary, all the proof and all the statistics and summarizing them with that one statement to serve his (myopic) purpose. 

[GH2001]

Which boils down to the real agenda, Alabama was paid a poop ton by the big distributors, I.e. Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc... to keep it like it was.  Therefore, they could have a somewhat monopoly. 

This is the answer I was looking for. This is why they oppose it. Chad, I think you are scapegoating religion here as an out. This is all about money, not religion. And Im not trying to flame you, but I think you are getting in a dig on religion here because its convenient, when the real issue here is corporate greed. Am I right? Be honest....Jesus is watching you. 

AWK - can you explain to me how religion or God is bad? Do you really mean many of the "followers" are bad?

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Mahatma Gandhi

[AWK]

Alcohol is bad is not subjective.  It's not an opinion. 

You can make arguments that all those other things are bad, but they all lack the one thing that alcohol has -- the physical and psychological addiction. 

Could the argument that "alcohol is bad" be better made?  Yeah.  But Chizad is merely taking all the evidence, all the commentary, all the proof and all the statistics and summarizing them with that one statement to serve his (myopic) purpose. 

Alcohol is bad is subjective. In moderation it is not bad for you.  Actually, a glass of wine a day is healthy for you.  The only other way you could view alcohol as bad is by the actions people take while on it.  That is subjective, plain and simple.  Guns are bad if people abuse them.  Guns by themselves are not bad, it is just how people choose to use them.

[GH2001]

Alcohol is bad is subjective. In moderation it is not bad for you.  Actually, a glass of wine a day is healthy for you.  The only other way you could view alcohol as bad is by the actions people take while on it.  That is subjective, plain and simple.  Guns are bad if people abuse them.  Guns by themselves are not bad, it is just how people choose to use them.

Ehhh. Technically its good for your heart (antioxidants and flavanoids) in moderate amounts and certain types (Red Wine, Muscadine Wine, etc). Its bad for your liver and judgement is impaired in any amount.  BTW - I drink in moderation. Im not against the stuff.

[Kaos]

Alcohol is bad is subjective. In moderation it is not bad for you.  Actually, a glass of wine a day is healthy for you.  The only other way you could view alcohol as bad is by the actions people take while on it.  That is subjective, plain and simple.  Guns are bad if people abuse them.  Guns by themselves are not bad, it is just how people choose to use them.

Guns do not cause psychological or physical dependence when used.  Some people become addicted to alcohol even when they don't exceed the recommended dose. 

There's a major distinction there.  It's a chasm, actually.

A glass of grape juice provides the same benefit.

The miniscule positives you could dredge up in no way outweigh the overall societal damage caused.  It's like burning your house down because you can use the fire to roast marshmallows.  Yeah, you can.  But at what cost?

[AWK]

Guns do not cause psychological or physical dependence when used.  Some people become addicted to alcohol even when they don't exceed the recommended dose. 

There's a major distinction there.  It's a chasm, actually.

A glass of grape juice provides the same benefit.

The miniscule positives you could dredge up in no way outweigh the overall societal damage caused.  It's like burning your house down because you can use the fire to roast marshmallows.  Yeah, you can.  But at what cost?

There you go spinning and argument and using absurd comparisons to avoid the real point.

1. Alcohol can be addicting. Addiction is addiction, rather it be physical or psychological, same results.  I could be addicted to a video game and have it ruin my life.  And you can be addicted to buying guns andusing them.

2. Besides that, the statement "alcohol is bad" is still subjective based on your own beliefs. 

[wreckingball]

If  is against alcohol, then why did he turn water into cold Coors Light? or was that Craig?

[Kaos]

There you go spinning and argument and using absurd comparisons to avoid the real point.

1. Alcohol can be addicting. Addiction is addiction, rather it be physical or psychological, same results.  I could be addicted to a video game and have it ruin my life.  And you can be addicted to buying guns andusing them.

2. Besides that, the statement "alcohol is bad" is still subjective based on your own beliefs. 

If you would legitimately attempt to argue this, I must conclude that you are insane.  

Alcohol addiction is a serious problem.   The fact that the addiction is physical -- and not just psychological -- paints it with a different stripe.  You cannot legitimately compare video game addiction or compulsively buying guns to alcohol addiction.  

Alcohol is bad.  The damage it causes to your body -- even in moderation -- is well documented.  You have the right to ignore that if you wish but you can't refute it by merely saying "no it's not."  

There is a group of people in this state (and in most others) who will oppose widening any law pertaining to alcohol.  I don't always agree with their rationale.  I think they lose the battle when they try to drag religion into it and turn the issue into a moral debate.  It's not really a moral debate at all.  Alcohol is destructive.  It's addictive.  If the only person you harmed when you used it was yourself, I could give a shit.   Suck down 40 cases a day.  The problem, however, is that it's not just the person using the product who suffers the effects.  It's everybody else.

[wreckingball]

If you would legitimately attempt to argue this, I must conclude that you are insane.  

Alcohol addiction is a serious problem.   The fact that the addiction is physical -- and not just psychological -- paints it with a different stripe.  You cannot legitimately compare video game addiction or compulsively buying guns to alcohol addiction.  

Alcohol is bad.  The damage it causes to your body -- even in moderation -- is well documented.  You have the right to ignore that if you wish but you can't refute it by merely saying "no it's not."  

There is a group of people in this state (and in most others) who will oppose widening any law pertaining to alcohol.  I don't always agree with their rationale.  I think they lose the battle when they try to drag religion into it and turn the issue into a moral debate.  It's not really a moral debate at all.  Alcohol is destructive.  It's addictive.  If the only person you harmed when you used it was yourself, I could give a shit.   Suck down 40 cases a day.  The problem, however, is that it's not just the person using the product who suffers the effects.  It's everybody else.

How are you affected if he drinks 40 cases a day?

[wesfau2]

Why isn't "alcohol is bad" enough?

If we were starting from scratch and writing the laws, you might be able to make that case.  The proverbial horse, however, is out of the barn.  Beer is available.  So....the arguments against high-gravity beer, high-volume containers and brewery restrictions are specious at best.

[Kaos]

If we were starting from scratch and writing the laws, you might be able to make that case.  The proverbial horse, however, is out of the barn.  Beer is available.  So....the arguments against high-gravity beer, high-volume containers and brewery restrictions are specious at best.

Some oppose kicking the door wide open and letting the remaining horses bolt, too.  If we agree that it's bad, why expand laws to allow more, larger, different kinds?

Beer is not always available, either.   Something like 25 or 26 counties (out of 64) remain dry.  

[Kaos]

How are you affected if he drinks 40 cases a day?

If he stays in his house I'm not.  I could give a shit what he does.

[Tiger Wench]

In reality, ALL OF Y'ALL (EDIT:  except for wes - I missed a post) are missing the original point of the thread, as usual, just so you can whale on each other aimlessly.

The issue is not whether or not to allow alcohol in Alabama.  That argument is done and over with.  Alcohol is legal in Alabama (subject to certain community based restrictions, but for sake of argument, let's just say "Legal in Alabama).  The issue now is whether or not to expand or re-interpret the current laws concerning alcohol to allow a business (current or future) to brew their own beer and sell it, either in their own establishment, or to bottle and sell to others.

Since the question of alcohol being legal is already settled, I do not see why this is such a big deal.  How is allowing a bar to sell beer that is bottled elsewhere any different than allowing a bar to sell beer that it made on premise, as long as they render to Caesar that which is Caesar's?  

This argument is more like why a company is not being allowed to open up a new Wendys, even though there is already a McDonalds and a Burger King, because fast food is bad for you.   Or a convenience store not being allowed to sell Camel cigs, even though they already sell Kool and Marlboro, because cigs are bad for you.  Most likely, McD and BK, and Kool and Marlboro are the ones supporting the prohibition on Wendy's and Camel in order to maintain their market share.  Even though the odds are good that the Wendy's or the Camels will not draw off that much market share - people are pretty loyal to one brand or another, it seems.  As niche market  - not to mention expensive - as handcraft beers are, I doubt the major labels see much difference at all.  Joe Six Pack is not going to spend the extra dough on "fan-cee" beer when he is just looking to get drunk.  Natty Light will do him fine, thankee veruh much.  

My husband and I frequent a brew pub near our home that sells handcrafted beers.  It is a family friendly place - basically an Applebees-type place, except with handmade beer and excellent food, right down to the kid's menu.  And even though this place sells its own beer, not everyone likes it.  They still sell plenty of Shiner and Bud and the usual stuff.  And I have yet to see anyone get hammered out of their mind at this place just because they sell high alcohol beer.

Religion or personal morals should not have a bearing on this.  Allowing homemade beer does not increase or decrease the ability of the average redneck to get drunk.  It just offers an alternative source - and not even really an ADDITIONAL source, since a beer drinker will drink whatever beer is available if he or she wants one.  No one says "Oh, well... since you don't have handcrafted beer, I am not going to drink one at all!"  Even my husband the beer snob will find SOMETHING on the list to drink if he can't get a handcrafted ale.  

So K, getting on the "Alcohol is bad" pedestal, while absolutely your perogative, is not really relevant here, and kind of off topic.  It would be appropriate if we were discussing whether or not a county should repeal its dry county status.  But we aren't.  

[wesfau2]

 If we agree that it's bad, why expand laws to allow more, larger, different kinds?

Who agreed on that?  Not me.  I love beer.  I love craft beer.

After watching Beer Wars by Anat Baron, I loathe the macros and the "three-tier system".

[Vandy Vol]

Alcohol -- which is contained in beer -- is a drug of physical dependence.

The initial desire to continue to drink beer is psychological in nature.  Unlike other drugs in which you are physically addicted after your first use or two, alcohol is not physically addictive.  If you drink copious amounts, become an alcoholic, and continue that pattern for years, your body will become dependent upon the drug being present in the system.  However, the addiction that instigated the resulting physical symptoms was not physical; it was psychological.  No one drinks five beers for the first time ever and then has an insatiable need to keep doing it, coupled with physical side effects.  That is what happens, however, with cocaine, heroin, and other physically addictive drugs.

[Kaos]

In reality, ALL OF Y'ALL (EDIT:  except for wes - I missed a post) are missing the original point of the thread, as usual, just so you can whale on each other aimlessly.

The issue is not whether or not to allow alcohol in Alabama.  That argument is done and over with.  Alcohol is legal in Alabama (subject to certain community based restrictions, but for sake of argument, let's just say "Legal in Alabama).  The issue now is whether or not to expand or re-interpret the current laws concerning alcohol to allow a business (current or future) to brew their own beer and sell it, either in their own establishment, or to bottle and sell to others.

Since the question of alcohol being legal is already settled, I do not see why this is such a big deal.  How is allowing a bar to sell beer that is bottled elsewhere any different than allowing a bar to sell beer that it made on premise, as long as they render to Caesar that which is Caesar's?  

This argument is more like why a company is not being allowed to open up a new Wendys, even though there is already a McDonalds and a Burger King, because fast food is bad for you.   Or a convenience store not being allowed to sell Camel cigs, even though they already sell Kool and Marlboro, because cigs are bad for you.  Most likely, McD and BK, and Kool and Marlboro are the ones supporting the prohibition on Wendy's and Camel in order to maintain their market share.  Even though the odds are good that the Wendy's or the Camels will not draw off that much market share - people are pretty loyal to one brand or another, it seems.  As niche market  - not to mention expensive - as handcraft beers are, I doubt the major labels see much difference at all.  Joe Six Pack is not going to spend the extra dough on "fan-cee" beer when he is just looking to get drunk.  Natty Light will do him fine, thankee veruh much.  

My husband and I frequent a brew pub near our home that sells handcrafted beers.  It is a family friendly place - basically an Applebees-type place, except with handmade beer and excellent food, right down to the kid's menu.  And even though this place sells its own beer, not everyone likes it.  They still sell plenty of Shiner and Bud and the usual stuff.  And I have yet to see anyone get hammered out of their mind at this place just because they sell high alcohol beer.

Religion or personal morals should not have a bearing on this.  Allowing homemade beer does not increase or decrease the ability of the average redneck to get drunk.  It just offers an alternative source - and not even really an ADDITIONAL source, since a beer drinker will drink whatever beer is available if he or she wants one.  No one says "Oh, well... since you don't have handcrafted beer, I am not going to drink one at all!"  Even my husband the beer snob will find SOMETHING on the list to drink if he can't get a handcrafted ale.  

So K, getting on the "Alcohol is bad" pedestal, while absolutely your perogative, is not really relevant here, and kind of off topic.  It would be appropriate if we were discussing whether or not a county should repeal its dry county status.  But we aren't.  

*ahem*

You're missing the point a little yourself.

Topics go where they go.  

I didn't open the "alcohol is bad" door, nor am I on any sort of raised platform.  When Chizad rants that people who don't think as he does are backwards ass hicks who prop themselves up with a fake Jesus and have no other point to make than "alcohol is bad", it's perfectly reasonable to then discuss the realities of that absurd position.  

When he chooses that path... well... what happens happens.  
 

[Kaos]

The initial desire to continue to drink beer is psychological in nature.  Unlike other drugs in which you are physically addicted after your first use or two, alcohol is not physically addictive.  If you drink copious amounts, become an alcoholic, and continue that pattern for years, your body will become dependent upon the drug being present in the system.  However, the addiction that instigated the resulting physical symptoms was not physical; it was psychological.  No one drinks five beers for the first time ever and then has an insatiable need to keep doing it, coupled with physical side effects.  That is what happens, however, with cocaine, heroin, and other physically addictive drugs.

So then people should only have two drinks and be cut off? 

BTW, you don't have to drink copious amounts to become an alcoholic.  The consumption of copious amounts is one symptom, but it is not the standard.