"Alcohol-The cause AND solution to all of lifes problems"I think it should be banned!

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
Intoxication in general is escape from reality even in minor amounts to "loosen up" which translates into (I don't want to face the causes of my social insecurities nor do I want to address them, but I'd rather just be intoxicated so I don't care).

[removed irrelevence]

People would rather drink to relax than learn how to master themselves so they can relax at will at any time of the day without intoxicants. People don't know how to have fun without being inebriated because they have lost the inner child. But its also human nature to often take the path of least resistance.

Yet another pigeon hole...

Enjoying a smoke, enjoying a drink, sip a nice scotch, snifter of brandy, whichever your preference is just a nice, settling cap on a hard day... something that will never change and will always be there. To some, a drink can like mom's apple pie or pot roast; an unsolicited kiss or hug from a loved one; hobbies like building ships in a bottle... I could go on.

Just because I partake of alcohol, does not mean I'm intoxicated every time, though I do admit there are times I've had too much, but I always realize I'm at that point and quietly retire for some needed rest. Social situations I involve myself in are never more than two drinks if I'm away from home, only one if the gathering is less than 3 hours; parties at home, I'm more likely to drink more. I always insist anyone at my gatherings at home either crash at my place or have a sober driver: if they won't agree, they don't attend.

reply to post by abecedarian


Well its a good thing the thread wasnt for you then, however, you would ba a casulty of this but think about the lives you would save! But no, people would be too selfish to give up THEIR alcohol, quite sad imo.

Here are some silly facts about the absurdity of alcohol legislation and taxation and how a possible trail could lead directly to Big Oil...

Ethanol, or methyl alcohol, safe for human consumption, 110 million gallons of it is produced in the US each year. Because it is relatively cheap to make, it could be cheaply sold. However, in its pure form it is consumable and therefore bound by the local, state, and federal alcohol tax laws, thus making it impossible to afford in the commercial industry. So the producers introduce additives to make the ethanol poisonous and unpalatable; things like methanol, petroleum oil, etc.. Once deemed unfit for human consumption, the alcohol duty tax is waived. Now instead of burning pure ethanol in your camp stove, you get methylated spirits (10% methanol). Instead of pure ethanol cleaning your skin prior to surgery, you get rubbing alcohol (ethanol with some isopropanol added for good-ol-brilliant governing sake).

Read this timeline - absolutely jaw-dropping in a few places. I only included the first part, but I suggest you click the Wiki link and read whole thing.

Timeline of alcohol fuel

Since ancient times ethanol has been used for lamp oil and cooking, along with plant and animal oils. Small alcohol stoves (also called “spirit lamps”) were commonly used by travelers in the 17th century to warm food and themselves.

Before the American Civil War many farmers in the USA had an alcohol still to turn crop waste into free lamp oil and stove fuel for the farmers' family use. Conflict over taxation was not unusual; one example was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791.

In 1826, Samuel Morey uses alcohol in the first American internal combustion engine prototype.

In the 1830s, alcohol blends had replaced increasingly expensive whale oil in most parts of the country. It "easily took the lead as the illuminant" because it was "a decided improvement on other oils then in use."

By 1860, thousands of distilleries churned out at least 90 million US gallons (340,000 m3) of alcohol per year for lighting. Camphene / alcohol blends (at $.50 per gallon) were cheaper than whale oil ($1.30 to $2.50 per gallon) and lard oil (90 cents per gallon). It was about the same price as coal oil, which was the product first marketed as "kerosene."

In 1860, German inventor Nikolaus Otto uses ethyl alcohol as a fuel in an early internal combustion engine.

In 1862 and 1864, a tax on alcohol was passed in the U.S. to pay for the Civil War, increasing the price of ethanol to over $2.00 per gallon. A new product from petroleum, called kerosene, is taxed at 10 cents a gallon.

In the 19th century, spirit lamps, Pigeon lamps and others used a variety of blends of alcohol and oils in Europe. Alcohol powered not only automobiles and farm machinery but also a wide variety of lamps, stoves, heaters, laundry irons, hair curlers, coffee roasters and every conceivable household appliance. By one estimate, some 95,000 alcohol fueled stoves and 37,000 spirit lamps had been manufactured in Germany by 1902.

By the 1890s, alcohol fueled engines are starting to be used in farm machinery in Europe, making countries more fuel independent. Research at the Experimental Mechanical Laboratory of Paris and at the Deutsche Landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft in Berlin in the 1890s helped pave the way for expanded use of alcohol fuel.

By 1896, horseless carriages (cars) were showing up on roads in Europe and the United States. Because gasoline is so cheap and abundant, and also because ethanol is taxed at a high level, early US automobiles are adapted to gasoline from the beginning. Racing cars, on the other hand, usually used ethanol (and other alcohols) because more power could be developed in a smaller, lighter engine. Charles Edgar Duryea builds the first U.S. gasoline powered car but is aware of Samuel Morey's ethanol fueled experimental car of 1826. Henry Ford's first car, the Quadracycle, is also built that year. The car runs on gasoline, but Ford is aware of experiments with ethanol in Germany, and subsequently backs the lifting of the U.S. tax on industrial uses of ethanol.

In 1899, the German government taxed petroleum imports and subsidized domestic ethanol. Kaiser Wilhelm II "was enraged at the Oil Trust of his country, and offered prizes to his subjects and cash assistance ... to adapt alcohol to use in the industries."

In 1901, the French ministry of agriculture offered prizes for the best alcohol fueled engines and household appliances.

I'm skipping to the last entry in the timeline...wow.

In 2007, United nations Food and Agriculture Organization Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food urges five year moratorium on food based biofuels, including ethanol, saying its development is a "crime against humanity."

reply to post by AllUrChips


It's not about being selfish. I don't drink but I can understand the fact that people have the right to do so. Where can you draw the line? Ban television because it sets a bad example for the kids. Ban videogames because they are violent. Ban pollution. Ban cars.

Pretty soon the only right we could enjoy is sitting in a eggshell painted padded room. That is the safest place for us...isn't it?

I agree with all that you have said. Abuse of alcohol was the worst scourge on humanity at one time but I believe drugs are the absolute worse scourge on humanity along with the abuse of alcohol. The children are the worse victims of this stupidity but sadly the governments of the world allow this to flourish. Don’t have the answers on how to curb this because of our laws that are on the books. Guess only education and religion are the best ways to try to control it. Seems odd that even our white house has a alcohol budget built right into the system.
---------
By Maggie Fox
Updated:
October 17, 2011 | 2:13 p.m.
People who drink too much cost the U.S. economy $223.5 billion a year, and governments pay more than 60 percent of their health care costs, federal health experts reported on Monday.
Alcohol abuse kills 79,000 people a year, the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.
----------
That’s just the tip of the ice berg. What happens to the ones who have destroyed their livers and brains in their old age? That is if they survive to get old. The medical costs get higher as they grow older. I wonder just what the additional costs are for drug users? Put them together and we have a scary problem in this country.
You are right on--

reply to post by AllUrChips


Like banning it would work, the USA tried that before...

Just like all other drugs, banning them doesn't stop people from wanting them or using them.

alcohol has been around for centuries, it aint goin nowhere and im glad, i drink pretty much every weekend and ive never been in trouble or done anything too stupid because of it, but yer right about the money thing, i once went to a budweiser brewery in colorado and i was astounded at the sheer size of the place and the amount of beer they pump out of just that one facility in just a day. im also not too sure that "most crime is a result of alcohol" alot of people are responsible and can control themselves.... we should just keep it outta the hands of all the dumb people

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by abecedarian

 

Well its a good thing the thread wasnt for you then, however, you would ba a casulty of this but think about the lives you would save! But no, people would be too selfish to give up THEIR alcohol, quite sad imo.

Lives I would save doing what? Not drinking? Hmm... considering I've cost no one any lives, that's a zero-sum prospect. Why are people selfish for not giving up their alcohol? Because it doesn't jibe with your preconceptions of right, wrong and responsibility?

What is selfish is asking the casual drinker to give up their persuit of happiness for your piece of mind. (Intentionally mispelled.)

To digress, I'll agree with some: the casual weed smoker isn't such a big deal, but in the past 35 years, However I've yet to meet a casual smoker: I know no one who only smokes on Friday and Saturday night- it's a daily thing, habitual if you will, oft more devout than an alcoholic's "addiction". Medicinal use of THC is another situation which I acknowledge, but if one is so bad that detachment through THC is required to survive, I could possibly agree that its use is okay for their needs and I won't push to ban it from them either. Just as you won't get in a car with a drunk, don't ask me to let one under THC influence drive me around. We have to be responsible in and for our own actions and how those affect others.

Consider that in your arguments.

What is rediculous is how this thread degraded from talking about alcohol to people citing other "legal yet harmful" chemicals in common foods... to comparing alcohol use to marijuana- suggesting if alcohol is legal so should marijuana be legal while maintaining alcohol is the problem and removing it the solution. If removing alcohol from society is a solution to problems in society as the same can be said for removing marijuana and other chemicals from society. Any chemical it seems, used improperly can contribute to cancer. Many alter or impair functions within the human brain. Many can, but do not necessarily, contribute to violent activities.

Heck, oxygen is destructive to human tissue. Injesting water can kill. So, let's ban them too!
That won't happen because people don't actively seek O2 highs, and water intoxication, right?
Nor do most people seek THC or ethanol as a solution to their problems.

To add:
I refuse to get in a car, as a passenger, if the driver has either smoked weed or drank... or done anything illicit or mind altering for that matter. I've personally witnessed the results of stoned drivers' false self-confidence levels; I've seen weed affect good judgment in a bad way and have had "stoned" friends lose at Russion Roulette. I've seen people go in to weed thinking it's not as bad as alcohol, brainwashed by the allegations that you're fine, just a little relaxed and hungry. I've known people who smoke, then drive a car, and get to the job site and say things like "WOW! I don't remember getting off the freeway!" I've seen stoners stop mid-sentence and ask me (the drunk guy), "what was I talking about again?" and I had to remind them. That's reassuring, isn't it?

I'm going to ask you one thing: let public opinion speak to you. Go back over the thread and note which users have the most stars on their posts, then come back here and report.

Originally posted by heavychevy13
.... we should just keep it outta the hands of all the dumb people

Oh great! ... an IQ test for drinking?
I bet if you set a level for that, THC users would fail it.

Originally posted by primus2012
...
Ethanol, or methyl alcohol, safe for human consumption,
...

Sorry, Ethanol is not methyl alcohol.
Ethanol, a.k.a. ethyl alcohol is the alcohol in beverages.
Methyl alcohol, a.k.a. Methanol, is significantly more poisonous.

Both can be derived from many of the same products: corn, wheat, barley, sugar cane, etc. but they are VERY different in the effects on the human body and how they affect agriculture.

reply to post by AllUrChips


Your theory is nonsense. Prohibition was tried in the past and it failed miserably because people wanted to drink -- not because of money. No one went without during prohibition and in the more sophisticated areas of society the law was virtually ignored. In fact, prohibition increased drinking due to the illegality of alcohol and the subsequent risk that followed if one wanted to drink. The only lasting effect of prohibition is that it provided society with disrespect and contempt for the law - and rightly so. In general, people hate it when a society with a chip on their shoulders tell people how to live. I am one of those people.

Your homeless man, your high level exec, your middle class man -- all do not care for your opinion. So, take your ignoble crusade and apply it only to your personal life. In that area, at least, you may be able to make a difference. Frankly, it is only in that area of your life where this particular subject matters.

I know of the dangers of alcohol. You know what - I also don't care. I am not going to live forever and I choose to alter my perception when I like. That is my natural right and until my actions harm another it's my business. There are people that know how to drink responsibly. Your post oozes ignorance because your argument is based solely on the negative aspects of drinking. A passing remark about how people enjoy it and can handle themselves is insufficient.

You say it is legal only for the money; If that is truly the case I would say that is good. It provides many people the opportunity to provide an income for their families -- from the Kwik Stop owner to the shippers to the manufacturers to the farmers. Would you deny these people this opportunity because YOU are against the product? That is an extremely selfish point of view. I would be more sympathetic if alcohol caused major problems. For example: If the production of this product caused serious damage for the environment, ecology of the planet, biological diversity, and so on. It doesn't.

I agree that alcohol provides problems for human society. However, the problems are caused by the people that abuse this product. Hell, the issues that arise from alcohol consumption are relatively minor when compared to other institutions that plague human society today. Your animosity should be directed at the people that cannot handle the drug responsibly. Unfortunately, you to want to prevent EVERYONE from consuming this product by making it illegal. You have said as much.

That is unacceptable.

No it's legal because people have been drinking it for thousands of years in hundreds of countries. Sometimes you gotta enjoy some risks in life or it's too dull...

Why does everything have to be a "conspiracy" you need a "theory" for?? Now even alcohol is a conspiracy by "tptb" for thousands of years that it's been "legal" across hundreds of countries??? They've all banded together in some grand conspiracy over alcohol?? This site is becoming a joke.

reply to post by abecedarian


Why do you have to correlate EVERYTHING to you? If it were illegal it wouldnt be accessible to ANYONE. Not the casual drinker nor the raging alcoholic! Why is it all about you is my question to you? You would not sacrafice it if saved many lives on the whole? THAT IS SELFISH!!!!

People can do whatever they damn well want. It's called freedom.

You can have my beer
You can have my Jack Daniels

When you can Pry them from my cold dead hands.

I am waiting for someone to turn this into a Food Police ad:

YouTube Link: Police..Police...

Food police...police...

I do not appreciate being pigeon-holed into your preconceptions. I've been drinking for 20+ years, not one DUI, not one spousal or child abuse incident, no problems here and none among my circle of friends either. I assure you that for every DUI, abuse or death at the hands of alcohol, there are thousands of people who never have an incident and people who have incidents and are not under the influence.

reply to post by abecedarian


This above. Since I was of drinking age I have been responsible, my group of friends always had a designated driver or we shared a cab home and we always looked after each other if one of us maybe had 1 too many. Now that I am older I rarely drink, maybe one after work every few months or maybe the odd 1 socially. To have someone dictate what I, a responsible adult can and cannot consume seems absurd. A small percentage of people are addicts and have addictive behaviour. I am not responsible for those people or their behaviour and to hold me accountable is ridiculous. Sure work on getting those people the help they need but their is no need to penalize the rest of us. For me alcohol is just something I rarely partake in but I am partial to the taste of of a single malt and do enjoy a glass. It would be like saying that nobody can have sex anymore because some people have contracted std's from unprotected sex and the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease is way too high. It is well known also that a glass of red wine is good for people with all the antioxidants in it. Criminal behaviour is not limited to incidents with alcohol and I do not agree with the suggestion that alcohol should be banned. Look how well that went with prohibition!

reply to post by abecedarian

I bet if you set a level for that, THC users would fail it.

Now, now. Perpetuating stereotypes helps no one. I have known many, many people who partook who are intelligent people. One of my friends who uses just got a job as an engineer at a metal factory. I don't think that he would have gotten that job, or through college for that matter, if he was an idiot. You can be a smart alcoholic and you can be a smart pot head. Those things are irrelevant to intelligence. Unless you are already an idiot, that is. haha