No benefit isn't why alcohol shouldn't exist. The ability to cause harm is. When something causes harm THEN you look to see what the benefits are to determine if the benefit is worth the price.
When a can of alcohol gets into a car and recklessly drives it, then you'll have a legitimate argument that alcohol causes harm. Otherwise, the harm of which you speak is a direct result of the irresponsible use of alcohol and the subsequent choices that an individual makes after imbibing.
Not in such a way that those who do harm to themselves or others are prevented from obtaining it.
Those who use alcohol in an irresponsible manner and harm others should be legally punished for their actions. If you feel that the punishments they currently receive for their actions aren't adequate, then it sounds as if your issue is with the legal system and its treatment of alcohol abuse, which is something I agree with.
The part in bold discredits any of the rest of the grasping attempts to justify. You lost that point by finally admitting what I've been saying for nine pages now.
Dulled senses do not equal uncontrollable reckless actions. Just because my reaction times are slower does not mean that I
will get into a car, no more than possessing a gun means that I
will illegally shoot someone. In both instances, a conscious decision still must be made by a person in order for any harm to come about; neither the gun or the alcohol are able to cause harm to others by themselves.
Oh, so the guy screaming all night about spiders crawling through the walls while I was in the hospital for my recent surgery actually DID see spiders? Damn. I need to contact UAB. They told me he was just going through alcohol withdrawal. Lying damn nurses. I knew there had to be spiders in there.
Alcohol withdrawal does not equal inebriation. Your argument was not premised on the number of people who cause deaths by going through alcohol withdrawal.
Regardless, even if you want to go down that road, there is still the issue of choice executed by prior conscious decisions. One sip of alcohol does not send someone into alcohol withdrawals and immediate hallucinations. Five beers wouldn't either.
If there is a significant number of people who cause harm to others due to alcohol withdrawals, then you have to take into consideration the fact that they consciously chose to drink alcohol in such a quantity for such an extended period of time so as to develop an addiction and eventually cause alcohol withdrawal symptoms.
Those "other drugs" that are highly addictive? All are strictly regulated and available only by prescription.
That reminds me: I need to refill my prescription of cigarettes this afternoon.
But on a more serious note, my point was that referring to alcohol as "highly addictive" is misleading, unless you either have a very broad categorization of "highly addictive" which includes a variety of drugs with differing levels of addictiveness, or are just ignoring other drugs completely.
Cocaine, heroin, and even nicotine, for example, are "rated" as more addictive substances than alcohol in peer-reviewed medical journals. This isn't to say that alcohol can't be referred to as "highly addictive," but there should be acknowledgement of the existence of more addictive drugs.
Aside from a differing level of addictiveness, many of those drugs which are more strictly regulated also have a more extreme and immediate effect than alcohol does. Drinking a beer does not affect you in the same manner as doing a line of cocaine, ingesting a hit of acid, or injecting 50ccs of heroin. It can very easily be argued that a person can not responsibly or consciously control their actions at all when influenced by such drugs; the same can not be said for alcohol, and the majority of members on this board can serve as proof of that.
I'm only asking about risk/reward. The statistics are what they are. It doesn't MAKE A FUCK that everybody who uses it doesn't kill or die. You have to evaluate the risk vs. the benefit.
You first indicated with statistics on deaths related to alcohol that it was
actual harm vs. benefits. But now, it's
risk of harm vs. benefits.
Regardless of this slight change in your argument, the fact still stands that the risk is created by a person's choice. By drinking one beer, I don't risk losing all control of my ability to make choices. Alcohol does not take control of my body and force me to walk to my car and drive. One drink of alcohol does not force me to continue imbibing until I'm not consciously aware of my choices. I have to make a decision to either drive while inebriated, or to continue drinking until I no longer have the ability to control my decisions consciously. Either way, it was my irresponsible choice that put me in such a predicament. I've made responsible drinking decisions for the last decade which have never resulted in harm to myself or others.
Is there a risk that I will act irresponsibly? Sure, but it still requires that I make a conscious effort to act irresponsibly. The alcohol can't do it by itself. There's a risk that I might decide to act impulsively or irresponsibly with a gun in the future, but that doesn't mean that I need to stay away from guns. But if I do choose to act irresponsibly in the future with a gun, then I should be blamed for my actions, not the gun. The same should be said for alcohol.
Would BuzzaGas be allowed to go to market today if it produced the same effects as alcohol? I notice you ignored that analogy. You ignored it because you know it to be true.
I ignored the analogy because it wasn't an analogy. Inebriation from alcohol does not cause hallucinations. Withdrawals do, but as addressed above, that was not the crux of your argument; inebriation was. Even if we assume that alcohol withdrawals can result in the death of others, there was still the choice of the person to imbibe alcohol to such an extent that they were in that situation. Had they responsibly and moderately imbibed alcohol, they wouldn't have withdrawals. You're blaming a substance for someone's conscious decision to abuse it.
Under that logic, dextromethorphan should be banned, because a person loses the ability to make intelligent decisions as a result of hallucinations and general impairment when they
choose to ingest quantities of it which are above reasonable and/or recommended dosages.
I'm going to pull the fucking trigger if you keep trying to make this ignorant comparison. How many fucking times do I have to state the simple fact that holding a gun in your hand does not impair your judgment?
The comparison that is being made is not that guns impair your judgment. Rather, the comparison is that, in order for a gun to be harmful to others, someone has to make a conscious decision to pull the trigger. Similarly, in order for the ingestion of alcohol to be harmful to others, someone has to make a conscious decision to partake in an activity that they shouldn't while inebriated.
The only portion of your argument that addresses this is that alcohol impairs your judgment. However, my judgment isn't impaired to the point that I feel an urge to drive a vehicle after one beer. Or two. Or five. In fact, unless I am black out drunk, I know that I should not drive. If I am black out drunk, then I chose to put myself in that situation, and if I did so without others around me who would be my DD or otherwise keep my from driving, then that is an irresponsible choice on my part. My choice should be at fault, not the alcohol, because I could have stopped drinking while my judgment was not impaired, yet I consciously chose not to.
Not even your own?
Sure, I've been so absurdly drunk that I could have injured myself in some manner. I don't get that drunk unless I'm surrounded by people I know, and I have already planned (or will be able to plan) a way to safely get home. You'll recall at the golf tournament last year that, despite my crazy eyes and stumbling about, I rode home with a sober friend and never made an attempt to even reach for my keys when it was time to leave, much less actually get in my vehicle.
However, I'm pretty sure that the likelihood of me injuring myself as a result of inebriation is not a part of your argument, as you don't really care what negative effects a substance has on me. Unless, of course, you're recanting this statement:
I don't give a shit if you drink lye or suck down draino. Don't care if you smoke 40 packs a day (in your own house where it's not on me). Doesn't bother me if you eat Big Macs for breakfast, lunch, dinner, fourth meal, second supper and third snack.
To quote Raising Arizona "You're only hurting yourself with that rambunctious behavior."
142 Replies
29861 Views