Alcohol should be banned in the UK Watch

This discussion is closed.
KomradeKorbyn
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 years ago
#61
(Original post by JordanL_)
The Conservatives have made illegal a huge amount of drugs, some potentially safe and useful, in a single blanket ban. This is supposedly due to the cost to society of these drugs.

Why are we banning drugs that kill less than a hundred people a year between them for their cost to society? Surely we should be banning alcohol, which caused over 6000 deaths in 2012 and costs the NHS £3.5 BILLION a year.

I really can't fathom how the cost to society can be used to justify banning drugs when it's a normal occurrence for people to binge drink every week.
"The government made one wrong choice, why don't they make another one".

It's stupid to ban drugs in the first place, you won't solve the problem by banning more.
0
KomradeKorbyn
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 years ago
#62
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Except alcohol generally kills you once you have already had children and they have grown up. That's when it catches up with you. Obviously you can die form an overdose.

That and alcohol has been consumed by humans since like forever. It would appear natural selection aint to bothered.
So have plenty of other drugs
0
NeoXx
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 years ago
#63
Maybe we should ban you instead.


Living a risk-free 100% healthy life would be dull and boring.
0
KomradeKorbyn
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 years ago
#64
(Original post by ShannyMorrison)
My guess is that because drink isn't necessarily as harmful as certain drugs.

I don't know about you but I'd much rather greet someone who's drunk than someone who's hallucinating.

Furthermore, drink may well damage you physically and, to an extent, mentally but that's nothing compared to the damage some drugs can do to you.

I've yet to hear of anyone becoming schizophrenic, bi polar or hallucinate because of a vodka and coke. I know two schizophrenics and both of them ended up in that state because of drugs.

Drugs are more addictive too. Many say that you can get addicted to heroine from your first time. I've never met someone who's become an alcoholic from their first shot.

It's also easier to die of a drug related overdose than drink related overdose. I'm not saying drink related overdosed don't happen but they aren't half as common as drug related ones. I'm sure I don't have to explain that one any further.
You seem to be confusing "drugs" with heroin. Heroin is a drug. Cannabis is also a drug. One is far more dangerous than the other. One is extremely addictive. One is more dangerous than alcohol. One can be overdosed on. Hint: it's not weed.

"Drugs" aren't more addictive than alcohol. Some are, a lot aren't. You can't blanket them all together because a few are addictive, but somehow have alcohol as some magic exception. Some drugs are more dangerous, some are more addictive, but many are less so than alcohol, and the law should treat them as such.

And really, would you want to be around someone who's drunk more than someone who's hallucinating? Drunk people get violent, angry, make stupid decisions, etc, people tripping balls just stare into space and giggle at the patterns on your carpet.
0
KomradeKorbyn
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 years ago
#65
(Original post by Toshiber)
Opiums just a plant maaaan I mean its not even synthesised in a lab so it must be healthy
Lol, I'm not saying whether it's a good idea to use them or not, but lots of drugs are natural and have been used by people for thousands of years. Natives living in South America used to chew coca leaves for example, essentially giving them a similar effect to extremely weak cocaine.
0
draculaura
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 years ago
#66
I'd ban it tomorrow, if I could. It doesn't do anyone any favours in the long term and short term. It makes people angry, violent and therefore putting other peoples life at risk (at night.) It is partly to blame for the ruin of lower class British youth. (Try walking around a city at night)
A philosopher called Nietzsche hated alcohol. He said that pain and envy was almost healthy to a person - because it gave them motivation to strive forward and make a better life for themselves. Alcohol numbs that pain, and you may feel it's helping you, but it's doing nothing but keeping you in that state and desperately wanting that quick fix, therefore taking you to an even earlier death and endless diseases/problems. That's worse than what some banned drugs do. And no, I'm not anti-alcohol (well, maybe a bit) but I am anti-'too-much-alcohol'.
0
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 years ago
#67
(Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
So have plenty of other drugs
Your point being?
0
Final Fantasy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 years ago
#68
Instead they introduce the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which I find ridiculous.
0
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#69
(Original post by ShannyMorrison)
1. I am suggesting brawls would occur if people weren't drunk because they do on a regular basis? I live in Scotland, it's normal amongst the beefheads. Religion, football, politics cause brawls too without intoxication. Also, when did I once say that drunk people can't cause damage to one another? I said that anything they would do would be sloppy.

2. Are you saying schizophrenia doesn't kill people? That's absurd! The amount of pills you have to take with the illness can cause overdoses, the suicide rates are higher, they can (if untreated usually) kill other people?

3. I'm not even going to bother argue my point, it'll only go through one ear and out the other as it always does with pro-weed folk.

4. Read above^ I'm not wasting my breath on you. All drugs are bad in excess, every single damned one, whether it's mixed or not. Are you trying to tell me that an energy drink can kill me but you can't directly die from cannabis? Bull.

5. Seriously, don't bother replying. I won't be swayed.
1. Okay, but a lot of them wouldn't. In 2011/12, 47% of violent offenders were under the influence of alcohol. I really don't understand how you're able to pretend otherwise, these are facts. Maybe your anecdotal experience/delusions tell you otherwise, but the statistics are clear.

2. The amount of pills you take for literally anything can cause overdoses. Suicide rates are higher for lots of illnesses. You're more likely to commit suicide if you have autism, that doesn't mean autism kills people. Liver disease kills you, schizophrenia doesn't.

3. Your point? Haha, wow. I've given your sourced scientific facts and you can't even give a response except "I don't like drugs, I'm better than you!" Grow up. Cannabis isn't addictive. This is a very simple fact. It's not difficult to comprehend, it's really not. I don't understand how the **** you think otherwise. All the scientists in the world are wrong and you're right just because you say so?

4. I don't understand. Cannabis and caffeine (energy drinks) are nothing alike. Caffeine is a stimulant, like amphetamine and cocaine. It raises your heart rate and blood pressure, it's addictive and can have long-term effects. Of course it can kill you. I'm shocked that you seem so shocked by that. Is there actually any reason why you seem to think cannabis is more dangerous than caffeine? I'm genuinely curious, you seem to have pulled this conclusion from your arse. I also don't see how it's relevant that all drugs are bad in excess. Like ****, thanks for the insight, but I don't see how that indicates that cannabis is worse than alcohol. Water is bad in excess too.

As for dying from cannabis, here's a scientific report (which you won't read, you'll just come back to tell me everyone's wrong and you know better). I'll quote it here for you:

The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkeywould be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds(21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. Inaddition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys.These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one timealmost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usualsmoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming50% destruction of the THC by smoking.
I've bolded for emphasis since you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.

no fatalities
The test subjects consumed what would be equivalent to a human eating 46 pounds of cannabis at one time and they did not die. You couldn't physically eat 46 pounds of cannabis at one time, you probably couldn't eat that much over two days. You literally physically cannot consume enough marijuana to overdose. This is a fact, I've shown you the experimental evidence for it. Frankly I don't care what you think, because you're wrong.

For a little perspective, slightly over half a 1L bottle of vodka would be lethal. Caffeine is lethal at about 150/mg for 1kg of body mass, so if you weigh 70kg (average) that would be 10.5g. Caffeine and vodka are both lethal (and mind-bogglingly considered safer by people like you), but I'm fairly sure it'd be easier to drink half a bottle of vodka than eat 46kg of weed.

5. Of course you won't be swayed, just like flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers won't be swayed. You've decided what you want to believe and nobody's going to change that. You really are deluded.

I'm honestly curious as to whether you can give any explanation or reason for your beliefs. I've given you evidence and you've told me I'm wrong, not once have you actually explained why you believe anything you believe.
0
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#70
(Original post by 雷尼克)
Just shut up and quit crying.
Great response, I think I've just been swayed.
0
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#71
(Original post by 雷尼克)
Are you going to face up to the fact that your argument has a multi million pound hole in it?
If the economic benefit is a valid reason for legalizing dangerous drugs, why can't we legalize the dozens of safer ones?
0
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#72
(Original post by 雷尼克)
Because alcohol has culturally become the most used drug apart from caffeine, alcohol is imported from all across the world and it has made a huge amount of money.

Cannabis, for example, would not be imported on nearly the same scale, fewer would use it, and it hasn't been culturally integrated like alcohol has.

And like I sad already, alcohol only dangerous if it is consumed too much.
But any drug is only dangerous if it's consumed too much. It's easier to consume too much alcohol than it is to consume too much weed.

How is "more people use it" a valid argument? That should be more reason to ban it.
0
sleepysnooze
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 years ago
#73
(Original post by draculaura)
I'd ban it tomorrow, if I could. It doesn't do anyone any favours in the long term and short term. It makes people angry, violent and therefore putting other peoples life at risk (at night.) It is partly to blame for the ruin of lower class British youth. (Try walking around a city at night)
A philosopher called Nietzsche hated alcohol. He said that pain and envy was almost healthy to a person - because it gave them motivation to strive forward and make a better life for themselves. Alcohol numbs that pain, and you may feel it's helping you, but it's doing nothing but keeping you in that state and desperately wanting that quick fix, therefore taking you to an even earlier death and endless diseases/problems. That's worse than what some banned drugs do. And no, I'm not anti-alcohol (well, maybe a bit) but I am anti-'too-much-alcohol'.
what business is it of yours if people damage themselves? if you rob people of their liberty, you rob them of their responsibility - are adult individuals responsible? if they're not responsible in this department, why are they responsible in any other department? why are they responsible in matters of unhealthy foods, caffeine, cigarettes, picking their nose, not cutting their finger/toe nails properly, not showering enough, etc?
0
draculaura
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 years ago
#74
(Original post by sleepysnooze)
what business is it of yours if people damage themselves? if you rob people of their liberty, you rob them of their responsibility - are adult individuals responsible? if they're not responsible in this department, why are they responsible in any other department? why are they responsible in matters of unhealthy foods, caffeine, cigarettes, picking their nose, not cutting their finger/toe nails properly, not showering enough, etc?
Because people don't realise it's wrong, or they DO know it's wrong but ignore it and think it's 'okay'. It's never okay. When you ban something, it's not usually to make people more miserable - it's to keep them safe. Unfortunately many adults aren't responsible, even though they know the consequences and drink heavily almost every night. Do you know how many people die from alcohol each year? I'd rather "rob someone of their responsibility" than let them die. They don't only ruin themselves, but the people they leave behind. Obviously, in this reality I wouldn't ban it. I couldn't, because I don't mind people having fun now and again and having a drink - but a lot of people abuse it and think they're invincible towards it. Unhealthy foods is also something to be worried about. And I think it's ridiculous you put alcohol and 'cutting finger nails' in the same context. Overgrown fingernails does not make you violent and angry, give you organ failure and kill you. It also doesn't keep you in a certain mental state - alcohol is known as a 'depressant' for a reason.
0
sleepysnooze
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 years ago
#75
(Original post by draculaura)
Because people don't realise it's wrong, or they DO know it's wrong but ignore it and think it's 'okay'. It's never okay. When you ban something, it's not usually to make people more miserable - it's to keep them safe. Unfortunately many adults aren't responsible, even though they know the consequences and drink heavily almost every night. Do you know how many people die from alcohol each year? I'd rather "rob someone of their responsibility" than let them die. They don't only ruin themselves, but the people they leave behind. Obviously, in this reality I wouldn't ban it. I couldn't, because I don't mind people having fun now and again and having a drink - but a lot of people abuse it and think they're invincible towards it. Unhealthy foods is also something to be worried about. And I think it's ridiculous you put alcohol and 'cutting finger nails' in the same context. Overgrown fingernails does not make you violent and angry, give you organ failure and kill you. It also doesn't keep you in a certain mental state - alcohol is known as a 'depressant' for a reason.
if you don't trust adults to moderate their drinking habits, how do you expect them to be responsible when they vote in elections, for example? let's take at the logic you're employing here: you don't like other people's choices over their own private matters. therefore, you want to control their lives and ban alcohol, making them not drink it anymore. elections are a totally *public* decision. if you're saying that those say adults aren't responsible to make private choices that don't affect you, what if they made really bad election choices? that affects you more than their drinking of alcohol. therefore, why should you tolerate their right to vote when you can't tolerate their right to drink? I really don't understand how you make a distinction. the distinction is 100% unprincipled subjectivism. if you think that they are responsible to vote, then surely, seeing as everything else is simply auxiliary in society (as governments are the core of the order of the community), something like alcohol is *nothing*. dying from alcohol is very rare. but electing a dictator (e.g. adolf hitler) is also very rare for societies (these days, anyway). surely the consequences of the right to vote are worse than the consequences of the right to drink?
0
draculaura
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#76
Report 3 years ago
#76
(Original post by sleepysnooze)
if you don't trust adults to moderate their drinking habits, how do you expect them to be responsible when they vote in elections, for example? let's take at the logic you're employing here: you don't like other people's choices over their own private matters. therefore, you want to control their lives and ban alcohol, making them not drink it anymore. elections are a totally *public* decision. if you're saying that those say adults aren't responsible to make private choices that don't affect you, what if they made really bad election choices? that affects you more than their drinking of alcohol. therefore, why should you tolerate their right to vote when you can't tolerate their right to drink? I really don't understand how you make a distinction. the distinction is 100% unprincipled subjectivism. if you think that they are responsible to vote, then surely, seeing as everything else is simply auxiliary in society (as governments are the core of the order of the community), something like alcohol is *nothing*. dying from alcohol is very rare. but electing a dictator (e.g. adolf hitler) is also very rare for societies (these days, anyway). surely the consequences of the right to vote are worse than the consequences of the right to drink?
I don't think you're understanding, and you're turning this into an argument.
Voting has much less of a consequence than drinking does. Jeremy Corbyn or David Cameron? Ooo, countries going to go into turmoil, guess I better start digging my bunker for this new Hitler.
And like I said, I'm not saying everyone drinks so much their kidneys will shrivel up and go into comatose.
Would you like some statistics? I took these off alcoholconcern.org.uk

Statistics on alcohol
  • More than 9 million people in England drink more than the recommended daily limits
  • In England, in 2012 there were 6,490 alcohol-related deaths, a 19% increase compared to 2001
  • Alcohol is 10% of the UK burden of disease and death, making alcohol one of the three biggest lifestyle risk factors for disease and death in the UK, after smoking and obesity.
  • An estimated 7.5 million people are unaware of the damage their drinking could be causing
  • Alcohol misuse costs England around £21bn per year in healthcare, crime and lost productivity costs

9 million people are not drinking responsibly. Like I said, I'd rather them not drink at all and keep them from harm if they cannot keep to regular guidelines, which are only there for THEM and no one else. These guidelines are only there because their safety is cared about.
6 and a half thousand deaths in a country for one year? Is it really so rare? 6 and a half thousand families have had to put up with grief in one year in one country, because of alcohol. Imagine how many it is worldwide.
I'm not even going to go through the rest, because I keep trying to put across the same thing. I don't want to get rid of alcohol because I'm some sort of Oliver Cromwell who hates fun, I want it because alcohol is a dangerous drug. Adults can't help the fact when they get addicted, but when they do - it tampers with their entire life, and the people around them. Why are you trying to find fault with that?
0
balanced
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#77
Report 3 years ago
#77
(Original post by JordanL_)
The Conservatives have made illegal a huge amount of drugs, some potentially safe and useful, in a single blanket ban. This is supposedly due to the cost to society of these drugs.

Why are we banning drugs that kill less than a hundred people a year between them for their cost to society? Surely we should be banning alcohol, which caused over 6000 deaths in 2012 and costs the NHS £3.5 BILLION a year.

I really can't fathom how the cost to society can be used to justify banning drugs when it's a normal occurrence for people to binge drink every week.
Ask yourself this.
1)How many people used these drugs which killed under 100 people, compared to Alcohol

Ratios, my friend, ratios.
0
sleepysnooze
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 years ago
#78
(Original post by draculaura)
...I don't want to get rid of alcohol because I'm some sort of Oliver Cromwell who hates fun, I want it because alcohol is a dangerous drug. Adults can't help the fact when they get addicted, but when they do - it tampers with their entire life, and the people around them. Why are you trying to find fault with that?
that's exactly* what you're seeming like, though. you're trying to imply that adult citizens are basically children who can't regulate their own lives for better or worse. it's none of your business. people should be free to choose which path in life they want and they should be free to either succeed or fail. if people fail, they ought to learn lessons. it's relatively simple. I mean, everybody learns lessons from former problems. for instance: I've almost died before from alcohol. I've been overweight before. I've done badly in school before (not anymore). it's a matter of free will. if you drink irresponsibly and rely on it, then you might get addicted and it doesn't take a genius to realise that. ultimately, if you're saying that it's the government choice whether a person can drink or not, and that their output is a matter of public interest, you're basically suggesting that people's lives belong to the state, which is a really creepy idea.
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 years ago
#79
No it shouldn't
0
kazhas93
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#80
Report 3 years ago
#80
I agree there are some issues with binge drinking, but an outright ban is far too strong. So much of society would change and economically would be a disaster
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you attending a Global Climate Strike?

Yes, I'm striking (39)
7.59%
No, but I wanted to/I support the cause (299)
58.17%
No (176)
34.24%

Watched Threads

View All