Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    There is quite a big difference here. Rape is by definition inflicting harm on another person. The act of drinking alcohol itself harms no one but the person drinking it. So where are rape is necessarily harmful to others, alcohol consumption is not always harmful to others. Only a small proportion (unfortunately a small but rather noticeable amount) of people get violent when they drink. Most people don't. Of course there may be other problems associated with it.

    The problem here is that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Just because a lot of violent crimes are committed by someone who has been drinking, does not necessarily mean they committed the crime because they were drunk. Of course it's quite obvious it does have some effect, but in many cases it might be that the sort of person who would commit these crimes anyway also happens to drink a lot. These statistics by themselves prove nothing useful. To really be meaningful you have to prove that alcohol causes people to be violent. I'm sure there are plenty of studies that have proven this is often true. But does the fact that it makes some people violent grounds for banning it for everyone?
    I agree that there's a difference - although I was just using the rape thing to point out a flaw with democracy, which is essentially the main thing which is keeping alcohol in our society at the moment. Although I would say that according to your argument, all drugs should then be legal, because in general they harm only the user and nobody else?

    And it may only be a small proportion of people who get violent when they drink, but a large proportion of actual violent incidents are direct results of drinking. True, correlation doesn't imply causation, and you can't really "prove" that the person wouldn't have been violent even if they hadn't had any alcohol. But in many cases, it's quite obvious. For example, I knew someone who went and beat up another guy for kissing his girlfriend. But in actual fact, he was drunk, and didn't realise that the girl wasn't actually his girlfriend.

    Maybe there are some people who are completely responsible with alcohol, and no harm has befallen them or anyone else from drinking it. But isn't giving up alcohol just a small price to pay, if it does indeed manage to cut violent incidences, underage/unwanted pregnancies etc. by such large percentages?

    I do find it upsetting that so many people in this country are so addicted to alcohol, such that they aren't willing to give it up for a greater good. But that is why banning alcohol in this country will have detrimental effects rather than beneficial ones.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EssexDan86)
    Alcohol is an important part of being human, and has been for millennia.
    :laughing:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattaf)
    When I say "drugs" are illegal, I'm referring to actual banned substances, not all drugs in general. If by selectively banning drugs, you are referring to how each is classified, possession of Class C drugs can still earn you "up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine or both" according to the home office website.

    I am not disputing that excessive consumption alcohol doesn't cause major health and social problems - clearly it does. However, I believe that education and tackling the social myth that "not drinking makes you anti-social" is the way forward, not banning it outright. As I have said, many people enjoy alcohol sensibly and the ban would affect them.

    Also, there are many communities in this country that depend on alcohol manufacturing for their livelihoods (distilleries in Scotland, etc). If it were banned, those communities would collapse and many people would be left unemployed.

    Your argument about cannabis being less harmful than alcohol does have some weight, but I would dispute it on a scientific basis - each has different effects and those effects depend on the amount consumed, so they can't really be compared. People who smoke cannabis can develop major problems even from smoking just one joint - with alcohol, you have to consume an awful lot in a short space of time and on a regular basis before problems begin to emerge. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks once a week with no adverse health issues, if done as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle.

    I don't think smoking cannabis can ever be considered as being part of a healthy lifestyle - just as smoking cigarettes cannot.
    Then neither can alcohol. It is a drug like any other. The cigarettes comparison is useless as they are much more harmful then cannabis and I don't even see why you mentioned them other than to link cannabis with them to portray it in a negative light.

    And that paragraph about the health risks is sickeningly wrong. The major possible danger cannabis has over alcohol is that it might not be pure, but this isn't even an issue in the same way purity is for a lot of other street drugs. You don't see people dying because of the purity of their weed. Alcohol is physically addictive and can be fatal. Cannabis is neither of those. The health risks far, far outweigh those of cannabis. The only major risks I can think of are psychological and affect a minority. Do you even know why it is illegal? Even without this aspect it is quite worrying that people have these ideas about alcohol.

    And by the way I am opposed(!) to an alcohol ban, for the reasons stated in my previous post. I just don't think some others should be banned either for mostly the same reasons as why I'm against alcohl ban.

    "When I say "drugs" are illegal, I'm referring to actual banned substances, not all drugs in general. If by selectively banning drugs, you are referring to how each is classified, possession of Class C drugs can still earn you "up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine or both" according to the home office website."

    No, I'm referring to the fact that some drugs are illegal and some aren't. Banned or not, it's still a drug. There is no magical difference that sets apart illegal drugs and legal ones, aside from the differences caused by their illegality like purity levels. Of course there are differences between individual drugs, but that has nothing to do with whether they are illegal or not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EssexDan86)
    Alcohol is an important part of being human, and has been for millennia.
    I hope that was ironic.

    And I can't believe people are falling for the bait.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'll ignore the fact that you compared alcohol with rape. It was absurd, and we'll just leave it at that. I'll stick with debating the points you made that are only mildly in error.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Just because the majority are in favour of a motion, it doesn't mean that motion should be passed - because many people are looking at their own needs/desires specifically, rather than the benefit of their society.
    The problem I have with this is that you see 'society' as something we should all work towards, as a collective benefit. There is no such thing as society in this case, at least in terms of government. There are only fragmented individuals who wish to have a bit of liberty, and banning alcohol infringes upon this liberty.

    As much as you may want an alcohol free collective of comrades working towards a common, collective goal of purity, I believe it is dangerous to hold utopian ideals like this. I would much rather have an anarchic situation where there were binge-drinkers and alcoholics on our streets, simply as it would preserve the rights of the whisky-lover to his single malt Islay whisky, or the real ale love to his delicious pint of hobgoblin, or the uncultured youth to their favourite magners (served with ice)

    I think that your collective ideals undermine liberty, as you are striving for a utopian society which holds fast to ideas of purity. And in doing so, you undermine humanity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackpoolCraig)
    I'll ignore the fact that you compared alcohol with rape. It was absurd, and we'll just leave it at that. I'll stick with debating the points you made that are only mildly in error.
    Like I said, it doesn't have to be rape. I haven't said that alcohol and rape are similar things, nor am I trying to compare the two. My point is simply that just because the majority are in favour of something bad, that doesn't stop it from being bad. It doesn't matter what "it" is. It could be alcohol, drugs, police rights, crimes... the list goes on.

    If you want a more mild example: Most motorists have broken speed limits at some point. So suppose the majority of people in this country wanted the National Speed Limit to be raised from 70 to 80. This may please the public, but it would result in more motorway deaths, of which we have enough already. So even though the majority are in favour, such a motion should not get passed, because in this case, the majority of people are thinking of themselves rather than others.

    We shouldn't be trying to benefit as many individuals as possible, we should be trying to create as much overall benefit as possible. They are two different things.

    The problem I have with this is that you see 'society' as something we should all work towards, as a collective benefit. There is no such thing as society in this case, at least in terms of government. There are only fragmented individuals who wish to have a bit of liberty, and banning alcohol infringes upon this liberty.

    As much as you may want an alcohol free collective of comrades working towards a common, collective goal of purity, I believe it is dangerous to hold utopian ideals like this. I would much rather have an anarchic situation where there were binge-drinkers and alcoholics on our streets, simply as it would preserve the rights of the whisky-lover to his single malt Islay whisky, or the real ale love to his delicious pint of hobgoblin, or the uncultured youth to their favourite magners (served with ice)

    I think that your collective ideals undermine liberty, as you are striving for a utopian society which holds fast to ideas of purity. And in doing so, you undermine humanity.
    Ok - why are cocaine, heroin and LSD illegal then? Should we preserve the right of the cocaine addict to keep taking his cocaine? Do you consider it "too utopian" to have laws aiming for a heroin-free society, and that these laws undermine liberty and humanity? Would you rather have an anarchic situation where everyone uses whatever drugs they want?

    How exactly are you differentiating between alcohol, and such drugs which are already illegal?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh come on, look where prohibition got the US.

    "Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers. When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption), because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores."

    Quoted from that bastion of dubious information...Wikipedia.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    We shouldn't be trying to benefit as many individuals as possible, we should be trying to create as much overall benefit as possible. They are two different things.
    I contend that liberty is more beneficial than tyranny.

    How exactly are you differentiating between alcohol, and such drugs which are already illegal?
    Alcohol is generally viewed as socially acceptable, in particular because it is often enjoyed not just for its effect, but for its taste as a constituent part of whisky and ale. I would actually support the legalisation and subsequent regulation of some recreational drugs which are enjoyed primarily for their effect rather than taste, but I do believe there is a distinction which society sees which you fail to.

    However, looking at drugs such as heroin, I believe there is a case for them to remain illegal on the basis that the cost of harm caused would not outweigh the benefit of placing heroin on the free market.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackpoolCraig)
    I contend that liberty is more beneficial than tyranny.
    Surely that depends on the specific case? For example, telling people that they all have to wear orange clothes or something. This will cause anti-benefit (for lack of a better word) to many people, as they probably don't want to be restricted in which colour clothes they wear. And the benefits of such a law are hard to find, let alone matching up to the "anti-benefit" it causes.

    However, in the example I gave you about speed limits: Telling people they can't exceed 70mph causes "anti-benefit" by annoying people who want to get somewhere quickly. Although it causes far more benefit (saving lives) than anti-benefit. I don't think that anyone is going to argue that being late is worse than killing someone.

    If liberty is *always* more beneficial than "tyranny", as you call it, then should people all have the liberty to drive their car at whatever speed they like?

    The world has already seen many examples where this kind of anarchy just doesn't work. Democracy only works from the assumption that the majority of voters are going to make the correct decision. But this isn't always the case...

    Alcohol is generally viewed as socially acceptable, in particular because it is often enjoyed not just for its effect, but for its taste as a constituent part of whisky and ale. I would actually support the legalisation and subsequent regulation of some recreational drugs which are enjoyed primarily for their effect rather than taste, but I do believe there is a distinction which society sees which you fail to.
    Well what is this distinction that I fail to have noticed?

    This is what I've noticed so far: Alcohol is viewed as socially acceptable, and so more people are addicted to alcohol than to other drugs. So banning alcohol is going to upset more people than banning other drugs.

    However, that doesn't make alcohol any better than other drugs. The reason that drugs such as cannabis etc are illegal is because of their detrimental effects on the user's health, (and therefore on NHS resources) as well as their ability to cause the user to behave in an innaproprate manner, which sometimes harms others, as well as the user of the drug. Alcohol shares exactly this in common. And it's easy enough to blame it on the drinker's irresponsibility - but it's not always their fault. The main effect of alcohol is to stop the brain's inhibitory centre from working. If someone is under the influence, they can't always help behaving in an innapropriate manner, because that part of their brain isn't even working.

    True, it appeases the public to keep alcohol legal. But then it causes far more problems. Alcohol addiction has already ruined so many lives, and taken so many lives too. And without alcohol, even if people are annoyed because thay can't satisfy their addictions, at least we would have made some progress on the way to clearing up the myriad of problems directly caused by alcohol.

    I don't personally think alcohol should actually be made illegal, because we've unfortunately already come to the stage in this country that people are so addicted, many would be willing to break the law to get their hands on some (Many underage people already are). But I do think the country/world as a whole would be better off if nobody drank it.

    However, looking at drugs such as heroin, I believe there is a case for them to remain illegal on the basis that the cost of harm caused would not outweigh the benefit of placing heroin on the free market.
    Not sure I understand what you mean by that sentence...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    I hope that was ironic.
    How was it? All historical evidence supports me. This country has a proud tradition of producing alcohol - it's part of national culture. Just because a few idiots misuse it doesn't make it wrong. You might have views that disagree with alcohol, but that's your own preference.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EssexDan86)
    How was it? All historical evidence supports me. This country has a proud tradition of producing alcohol - it's part of national culture. Just because a few idiots misuse it doesn't make it wrong. You might have views that disagree with alcohol, but that's your own preference.
    You suggested that somehow to be human you had to consume alcohol - while this is clearly not the case. The history of producing alcohol is neither here nor there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I LOVE prohibition and i HATE freedom + alcohol
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I say we should just ban cheap lager and cheap cider, vodka, aftershock, sambucca, absinthe etc.; things that most people drink purely to get pissed with. That would leave decent beer, decent cider, wine, port, brandy, whisky, gin, cointreau, aperitifs etc.; things that people tend to drink for enjoyment rather than for the purposes of binge drinking. Sure, people would still get drunk now and then, but it would help to eradicate the binge drinking culture that is so harmful to the individual and society.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by RightSaidJames)
    I say we should just ban cheap lager and cheap cider, vodka, aftershock, sambucca, absinthe etc.; things that most people drink purely to get pissed with. That would leave decent beer, decent cider, wine, port, brandy, whisky, gin, cointreau, aperitifs etc.; things that people tend to drink for enjoyment rather than for the purposes of binge drinking. Sure, people would still get drunk now and then, but it would help to eradicate the binge drinking culture that is so harmful to the individual and society.
    I love that you phrased your authoritarian rhetoric so as to make it seem that you actually cared about individualism in the slightest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pretz)
    I LOVE prohibition and i HATE freedom + alcohol
    Oh come now. Your trolling is becoming less subtle.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pretz)
    I LOVE prohibition and i HATE freedom + alcohol
    Saudi Arabia sounds like your kind of place then!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    I love that you phrased your authoritarian rhetoric so as to make it seem that you actually cared about individualism in the slightest.
    Ha, it's hardly authoritarian rhetoric. I'm really quite liberal about this issue (well, most issues, actually), if people want to get drunk on crap tasting alcohol that's their prerogative, but I'll stick to decent drink and aim not to get drunk. But if alcohol was to be partially banned "for the good of society", that would be the way I think it should be done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pretz)
    Seriously, if the human race discovered alcohol in the past 200 years it would be an illegal drug much like marihuana is today - I know that it is a drug that is intertwined with human history but that DOESN'T make it right! It's time to ban alcohol.

    The reasons why alcohol should be banned are so numerous that I can barely even begin to list them - underage sex, drunken driving, teenagers gone wild, yob violence, stabbings, liver damage - it goes on and on!

    Discuss.
    GO AND FIND YOURSELF SOME PUNANI
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psycho)
    GO AND FIND YOURSELF SOME PUNANI
    I think it's too late for that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Prohibition creates crime and maximises the harm drugs cause- most of the crime we have today is due to this biblical obsession with eradicating the use of certain drugs in global society pushed on us by the US after their experiment with alcohol prohibition failed spectacularly...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.