Should Alcohol be banned?

[bobbylien]

The problems that alcohol causes every day in our country cannot be denied. Is it really worth the price? Alcohol is a much bigger problem then the war in iraq. Its bigger than abortion and gay marriage. Bigger than the immigration debate. This is the biggest issue facing our country right now. I'm wondering what you people think possibly banning alcohol.

Read this entire page and tell me alcohol is worth it.
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/factsheets/general_information.htm

In 2000, there were approximately 85,000 deaths attributable to either excessive or risky drinking in the U.S., making alcohol the third leading actual cause of death (Mokdad, 2004).

[Labrocca]

Banning alcohol is what gave organised crime a huge boost during prohibition. I am not sure if you are aware that in the 30s alcohol was illegal for some years. I think drunk driving is a big issue. Realistically we are humans and prone to habits and self-destructive behavior. With or without substance being legal there are still users and abusers.

[Alonzo]

Teach children proper drinking habits, and making it so it is not a big deal. That's what they do in europe and the people I know who were introduced to alcohol by their parents and in controlled situations (which was the case in my family as well) are less likely to get drunk, and very unlikely to abuse alcohol. Also, Discourage hard liquor and such, like vodka, in favor of beer and wine.

The worst thing is for kids to be introcuded to liquor from peers who think "Woohoo! Let's get smashed!".

Banning it won't work. I can go out in my yard, pick some dandelions, buy an orange, lemon, sugar etc. and make my own dandelion wine, and you can easily make it with cider. Though, when banned, dangerous hard liquors (like moonshine) surface. And you also lose the aspect of control, the concept of responsible drinking would disappear.

And, besides, past attempts at banning alcohol have been miserable failures, and simply provide new revenue for organized crime.

[bobbylien]

Yes, I am aware of the previous ban during the depression. The ban failed because it was badly planned and horribly executed by the government. Alcohol is a MUCH bigger problem now. The reason for banning it back then was mostly a religious one. I thought there was only one ban in US history.

Maybe the idea of an alcohol-less country is utopic, people are too stupid to understand that its for their own good. Sure it would be great if we could trust people to use it in small amounts, but we can't. We won't ever stop it at this rate.

[bobbylien]

With or without substance being legal there are still users and abusers.

Yes, but there would be less. I very highly doubt average middle class beer drinking americans would start doing it illegally.
A ban on alcohol will never happen because if people are ever smart enough to see the horrors that alcohol causes, they would stop drinking.

[Nathan Brazil]

With or without substance being legal there are still users and abusers.Â*Â*

Yes, but there would be less. I very highly doubt average middle class beer drinking americans would start doing it illegally.
A ban on alcohol will never happen because if people are ever smart enough to see the horrors that alcohol causes, they would stop drinking.


Prohibition created the Kennedy fortune. Do we need to do anything like that again?

Besides which, it was an utter failure. Alcohol consumption rose every year under the Volkstead Act.

Cocaine was banned, also. That was a wonderful success, too, wasn't it? It didn't lead to more crime, gang wars, or devasted neighborhoods, did it?

No, this is a free country. Let peole poison themselves as they please, and only punish those that do stupid things like drive motor vehicles under the influence.

[Athena]

Yes, I am aware of the previous ban during the depression. The ban failed because it was badly planned and horribly executed by the government. Alcohol is a MUCH bigger problem now. The reason for banning it back then was mostly a religious one. I thought there was only one ban in US history.

Maybe the idea of an alcohol-less country is utopic, people are too stupid to understand that its for their own good. Sure it would be great if we could trust people to use it in small amounts, but we can't. We won't ever stop it at this rate.


Muslim dominated countries ban alcohol. The US has entered two of these countries by force of arms and brings its alcohol with them in complete disregard for the country's laws against alcohol. How hypocritical to say we are a country of morals and laws, while we violate the laws of Muslim countries! The US is wrong to violate the laws of countries it enteres.

At home, those who produce and sell products that harm people should be held accountable for the harm of their product. Everyone making a profit off alcohol should be taxed to cover the expenses resulting from the product. I would apply this to rule to all products. The cost of all products should include covering all expenses. Cleaning up polution, replanting trees, resolving health problems, etc..

[bobbylien]

At home, those who produce and sell products that harm people should be held accountable for the harm of their product. Everyone making a profit off alcohol should be taxed to cover the expenses resulting from the product. I would apply this to rule to all products. The cost of all products should include covering all expenses. Cleaning up polution, replanting trees, resolving health problems, etc..

Alright, thats the kind of view I don't like. If its harmfull, make it illegal. Don't persecute an industry doing something COMPLETELY LEGAL. If what the company is doing is illegal, then they deserve to pay the price.

[Old Corps Gunny]

Putting a ban on anything people want flat out does not work; this has been proven time and time again. While the Volstead Act was in effect, per capita consumption of alcohol actually went up (probably because it was considered "cool" to thumb one's nose at what was considered a government intrusion into private affairs -- a popular attitude that is still prevalent); as a side effect, poisoning caused by tainted "hooch" also increased since a lot of the booze being served was whipped up with whatever was handy just to make a profit for the "speak-easies" that served it up and the criminal gangs that ran those businesses.

What bothers me is not the abuse of substances -- there are laws to deal with that -- but the idea that if "it's bad for you, let's make it illegal to do or possess." Sky-diving, scuba diving, boxing, football, hockey; all are inherently dangerous sports. Should they be banned for that reason? Driving is inherently dangerous; does that mean automobiles should be banned? This country was founded on the principles of individual freedom and minimal government inerference. I believe it should be kept that way, otherwise we would be living in a police state.

[Athena]

Putting a ban on anything people want flat out does not work; this has been proven time and time again.Â*Â*While the Volstead Act was in effect, per capita consumption of alcohol actually went up (probably because it was considered "cool" to thumb one's nose at what was considered a government intrusion into private affairs -- a popular attitude that is still prevalent); as a side effect, poisoning caused by tainted "hooch" also increased since a lot of the booze being served was whipped up with whatever was handy just to make a profit for the "speak-easies" that served it up and the criminal gangs that ran those businesses.

What bothers me is not the abuse of substances -- there are laws to deal with that -- but the idea that if "it's bad for you, let's make it illegal to do or possess."Â*Â*Sky-diving, scuba diving, boxing, football, hockey; all are inherently dangerous sports.Â*Â*Should they be banned for that reason?Â*Â*Driving is inherently dangerous; does that mean automobiles should be banned?Â*Â*This country was founded on the principles of individual freedom and minimal government inerference.Â*Â*I believe it should be kept that way, otherwise we would be living in a police state.


How about this, people who do alcohol or drugs must buy insurance to cover expenses they may inoccur as a result.

My daughter works in a detox center, and these workers are paid very little and work under very difficult conditions, like working two shifts, because there are not enough employees, and there are not enough employees because the wages are so low and there are no benefits. This is a serious hardship on the families, but someone has to do the work, because people's lives are on the line and these people have families too. We all benefit when the addict can hold a job and care for his/her family. But who is going to pay for their treatment? The industry that is making the profits should be covering the expense. The government doesn't have too, if there is a law saying products that harm people should cover the expense of treatment.

[Athena]

At home, those who produce and sell products that harm people should be held accountable for the harm of their product.Â*Â*Everyone making a profit off alcohol should be taxed to cover the expenses resulting from the product.Â*Â*I would apply this to rule to all products.Â*Â*The cost of all products should include covering all expenses.Â*Â*Cleaning up polution, replanting trees, resolving health problems, etc..Â*Â*

Alright, thats the kind of view I don't like. If its harmfull, make it illegal. Don't persecute an industry doing something COMPLETELY LEGAL. If what the company is doing is illegal, then they deserve to pay the price.


There is no if's, and's, or but's about it, alcohol is poisonous.Â*Â*If a person drinks enough of it fast enough, the person can die within a few hours.Â*Â*However, most people pass out before drinking enough to kill themselves, and we tend to throw up when drinking too much.Â*Â*Over a period of time, there is liver damage and/or noticable brain damage.Â*Â*There is a lot of crime directly associated with alcoholism, addicts loose their jobs and familes.Â*Â*Too often their families require public assistance.Â*Â*There is no question that alcohol is harmful.Â*Â*The only question is what to do about it.Â*Â*

When an industry produces a product that causes harm, the industry is held accountable for the damages.Â*Â*Alcohol causes harm, but the industry is not held accountable.Â*Â*Â*Â*

[bobbylien]

How about this, people who do alcohol or drugs must buy insurance to cover expenses they may inoccur as a result.

My daughter works in a detox center, and these workers are paid very little and work under very difficult conditions, like working two shifts, because there are not enough employees, and there are not enough employees because the wages are so low and there are no benefits. This is a serious hardship on the families, but someone has to do the work, because people's lives are on the line and these people have families too. We all benefit when the addict can hold a job and care for his/her family. But who is going to pay for their treatment? The industry that is making the profits should be covering the expense. The government doesn't have too, if there is a law saying products that harm people should cover the expense of treatment.

So you support the rights of people to make bad choices but won't hold them responsible for them? The alcohol companies promote safe use, why should they have to pay for people who misuse their product? Alcohol isnt too harmfull if used in moderation like they try to promote it.

[bobbylien]

There is no if's, and's, or but's about it, alcohol is poisonous. If a person drinks enough of it fast enough, the person can die within a few hours. However, most people pass out before drinking enough to kill themselves, and we tend to throw up when drinking too much. Over a period of time, there is liver damage and/or noticable brain damage. There is a lot of crime directly associated with alcoholism, addicts loose their jobs and familes. Too often their families require public assistance. There is no question that alcohol is harmful. The only question is what to do about it.

When an industry produces a product that causes harm, the industry is held accountable for the damages. Alcohol causes harm, but the industry is not held accountable.

Not all drinkers drink to the point of passing out. If what you say is true and alcohol is really that bad for you, then why is it legal. If you feel this strongly against it, why don't you support banning it?

[Nathan Brazil]

Yes, I am aware of the previous ban during the depression. The ban failed because it was badly planned and horribly executed by the government. Alcohol is a MUCH bigger problem now. The reason for banning it back then was mostly a religious one. I thought there was only one ban in US history.

Maybe the idea of an alcohol-less country is utopic, people are too stupid to understand that its for their own good. Sure it would be great if we could trust people to use it in small amounts, but we can't. We won't ever stop it at this rate.


Muslim dominated countries ban alcohol.Â*Â*The US has entered two of these countries by force of arms and brings its alcohol with them in complete disregard for the country's laws against alcohol.Â*Â*How hypocritical to say we are a country of morals and laws, while we violate the laws of Muslim countries!Â*Â*The US is wrong to violate the laws of countries it enteres.

At home, those who produce and sell products that harm people should be held accountable for the harm of their product.Â*Â*Everyone making a profit off alcohol should be taxed to cover the expenses resulting from the product.Â*Â*I would apply this to rule to all products.Â*Â*The cost of all products should include covering all expenses.Â*Â*Cleaning up polution, replanting trees, resolving health problems, etc..Â*Â*


You mean that lovely muslim religion, some of whose practioners spent their last night on earth in topless bars drinking...ALCOHOL...before boarding airplanes the next day to hijack and murder thousands of Americans? That's the religion we should be respecting?

Why?

People TAKING the product and acting irresponsibly should be held liable for the damage their irresponsibility causes. Mature people that can drink, toke, shoot up, or snort without harming others shouldn't be deprived of their freedom to be stupid just because some people really ARE stupid.

[Nathan Brazil]

How about this, people who do alcohol or drugs must buy insurance to cover expenses they may inoccur as a result.Â*Â*

My daughter works in a detox center, and these workers are paid very little and work under very difficult conditions, like working two shifts, because there are not enough employees, and there are not enough employees because the wages are so low and there are no benefits.Â*Â*This is a serious hardship on the families, but someone has to do the work, because people's lives are on the line and these people have families too.Â*Â*We all benefit when the addict can hold a job and care for his/her family.Â*Â*But who is going to pay for their treatment?Â*Â*The industry that is making the profits should be covering the expense.Â*Â*The government doesn't have too, if there is a law saying products that harm people should cover the expense of treatment

If your daughter wants a bigger paycheck, tell her to find a better job. If she's working there for some other reason, tell her to be quiet. Market forces drive wages.

"We" all benefit when an addict holds a job? Not really. They benefit, and the freeway underpasses become less crowded, which is something those of us up on the roadway don't really notice.

Who pays for their treatment? Volunteers, I guess. Charity. Maybe addicts should consider all the options before they choose to become addicted? This doesn't seem like a problem that requires government action or taxation, though.

But I'll compromise with ya. Agree to end the silly bans on drugs, end the freedom ending and government enabling "war on drugs", and I'll agree that sales of these products, regulated in a manner similar to alcohol, shall carry a tax intended solely to cover the cost of regulation and the expenses of rehabilitiation, incarceration, and incineration of users of those products.

[Alonzo]

The alcohol companies promote safe use, why should they have to pay for people who misuse their product?

They promote it like philip morris helps people quite smoking. It's good PR and helps them avoid lawsuits. The production of alcopops by mainstream companies, like anheuser, is evidence of this. They are particularly popular in europe and are heavily used by underage people and are often criticized by being intentionally targetting underage people in their advertising.

Mature people that can drink, toke, shoot up, or snort without harming others shouldn't be deprived of their freedom to be stupid just because some people really ARE stupid.

Ah, yes. People are really at their most mature and sensible when they're on cocaine.

Maybe addicts should consider all the options before they choose to become addicted?

Yes, becuase people really think to themselves "ya know what, I'm gonna become addicted to coke!". No, they're like you, they think they can handle it and they'll never become addicted.

[Nathan Brazil]

Yes, becuase people really think to themselves "ya know what, I'm gonna become addicted to coke!". No, they're like you, they think they can handle it and they'll never become addicted.



If they were like me, they'd understand addiction, their own limits, and not cross them. I've never become addicted to any drug at all.

If they're ignorant of their own abilities, or ignorant of what the substance will do to the, too bad. It's not like society doesn't abound with fine examples of what addiction to any substance of choice will do, all those people seeking a new thrill have to do is look around. They'll find the coke addict with the rotted nose, the meth addict with permanent twitches, and the ubiquitous drunkard.

Yeah, if they become addicts, it's because they chose to follow that road. I chose not to become addicted to heroin, so I've never done the stuff. I chose not to become addicted to cocaine, so I've never sucked powder up my nose or smoked crack. I used to drink, even got totally plastered at frat parties. Then I stopped, except for the occasional marguarita. It never controlled me, because I knew better.

The weak people playing games or worse, playing doctor, with drugs, didn't elect anyone to be their mother. Let them have the freedom to live their own lives.

[F34R]

Athena,
The problem with that is there are a LOT of other products that harm people if abused. Who is going to responsible for that ? People have to take the responsibility themselves as to what goes into their bodies. At some point, most people had a choice. Why make the companies who make these legal products be put with the burden of helping treat people who have misused their legal products ?

Also, those people chose to do that kind of work. They chose to put their families in that hardship. They knew, or at least should have known, what they were getting into.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I just thought I'd post another point of view. I am also in a job where the pay is low, the risk is high, and my family is put through an extraordinary amount of stress, daily. So I see your point, and I've "been there, done that" so to speak.

[Athena]

Yes, I am aware of the previous ban during the depression. The ban failed because it was badly planned and horribly executed by the government. Alcohol is a MUCH bigger problem now. The reason for banning it back then was mostly a religious one. I thought there was only one ban in US history.

Maybe the idea of an alcohol-less country is utopic, people are too stupid to understand that its for their own good. Sure it would be great if we could trust people to use it in small amounts, but we can't. We won't ever stop it at this rate.


Muslim dominated countries ban alcohol.Â*Â*The US has entered two of these countries by force of arms and brings its alcohol with them in complete disregard for the country's laws against alcohol.Â*Â*How hypocritical to say we are a country of morals and laws, while we violate the laws of Muslim countries!Â*Â*The US is wrong to violate the laws of countries it enteres.

At home, those who produce and sell products that harm people should be held accountable for the harm of their product.Â*Â*Everyone making a profit off alcohol should be taxed to cover the expenses resulting from the product.Â*Â*I would apply this to rule to all products.Â*Â*The cost of all products should include covering all expenses.Â*Â*Cleaning up polution, replanting trees, resolving health problems, etc..Â*Â*


You mean that lovely muslim religion, some of whose practioners spent their last night on earth in topless bars drinking...ALCOHOL...before boarding airplanes the next day to hijack and murder thousands of Americans?Â*Â*That's the religion we should be respecting?

Why?

People TAKING the product and acting irresponsibly should be held liable for the damage their irresponsibility causes.Â*Â*Mature people that can drink, toke, shoot up, or snort without harming others shouldn't be deprived of their freedom to be stupid just because some people really ARE stupid.


Hum, how do I address this without writing a book? Is there an interest in what these substances do to a person? Does anyone care what they do to families? Like I don't want to write long threads no one wants to read, but it does appear some are arguing without good information.

[Athena]

Yes, I am aware of the previous ban during the depression. The ban failed because it was badly planned and horribly executed by the government. Alcohol is a MUCH bigger problem now. The reason for banning it back then was mostly a religious one. I thought there was only one ban in US history.

Maybe the idea of an alcohol-less country is utopic, people are too stupid to understand that its for their own good. Sure it would be great if we could trust people to use it in small amounts, but we can't. We won't ever stop it at this rate.


Muslim dominated countries ban alcohol.Â*Â*The US has entered two of these countries by force of arms and brings its alcohol with them in complete disregard for the country's laws against alcohol.Â*Â*How hypocritical to say we are a country of morals and laws, while we violate the laws of Muslim countries!Â*Â*The US is wrong to violate the laws of countries it enteres.

At home, those who produce and sell products that harm people should be held accountable for the harm of their product.Â*Â*Everyone making a profit off alcohol should be taxed to cover the expenses resulting from the product.Â*Â*I would apply this to rule to all products.Â*Â*The cost of all products should include covering all expenses.Â*Â*Cleaning up polution, replanting trees, resolving health problems, etc..Â*Â*


You mean that lovely muslim religion, some of whose practioners spent their last night on earth in topless bars drinking...ALCOHOL...before boarding airplanes the next day to hijack and murder thousands of Americans?Â*Â*That's the religion we should be respecting?

Why?

People TAKING the product and acting irresponsibly should be held liable for the damage their irresponsibility causes.Â*Â*Mature people that can drink, toke, shoot up, or snort without harming others shouldn't be deprived of their freedom to be stupid just because some people really ARE stupid.


I think an international forum, should make ever effort to prevent the prejudice, such as the above statement. Millions of people should not defined by the actions of a few deviants. The Muslims I have known are far more respectful than the average US citizen.

I was speaking with a friend just the other day of the harm of immoral behavior. Immoral behaviors are like a polutant that harms all of us. A result of USA education since 1958 is an amoral society. Moral was a Greek word meaning to know good manners and the Law (universal law, or what some call God's laws). Religion is not essential to a moral society, but some kind of education for morality is essential to a moral society, and only highly moral can have liberty. I hope these forums will not dominated by people who have no such training. I hope the moderators are not careless about offensive prejudice statements.

[Athena]

How about this, people who do alcohol or drugs must buy insurance to cover expenses they may inoccur as a result.Â*Â*

My daughter works in a detox center, and these workers are paid very little and work under very difficult conditions, like working two shifts, because there are not enough employees, and there are not enough employees because the wages are so low and there are no benefits.Â*Â*This is a serious hardship on the families, but someone has to do the work, because people's lives are on the line and these people have families too.Â*Â*We all benefit when the addict can hold a job and care for his/her family.Â*Â*But who is going to pay for their treatment?Â*Â*The industry that is making the profits should be covering the expense.Â*Â*The government doesn't have too, if there is a law saying products that harm people should cover the expense of treatment

If your daughter wants a bigger paycheck, tell her to find a better job.Â*Â*If she's working there for some other reason, tell her to be quiet.Â*Â*Market forces drive wages.Â*Â*

"We" all benefit when an addict holds a job?Â*Â*Not really.Â*Â*They benefit, and the freeway underpasses become less crowded, which is something those of us up on the roadway don't really notice.

Who pays for their treatment?Â*Â*Volunteers, I guess.Â*Â*Charity.Â*Â*Maybe addicts should consider all the options before they choose to become addicted?Â*Â*This doesn't seem like a problem that requires government action or taxation, though.

But I'll compromise with ya.Â*Â*Agree to end the silly bans on drugs, end the freedom ending and government enabling "war on drugs", and I'll agree that sales of these products, regulated in a manner similar to alcohol, shall carry a tax intended solely to cover the cost of regulation and the expenses of rehabilitiation, incarceration, and incineration of users of those products.


Excuse me, but your statement is so rude.Â*Â*Some of us believe the best use of our lives is helping others, and yet this should not mean our families, our children, endure poverty and deprivation.Â*Â*Those who do the most for humanity, deserve pay equal to the good they are doing, and all the dignity, respect and social benefits of middle class working people.Â*Â*I am a care giver and while the people in your life may be drinkers and drug users, the people in my life are care givers.Â*Â*This is the work women once did as a matter of being women, and men supported them.Â*Â*Today men are not supporting women, and they must earn a living.Â*Â*Their work has social value, and can save lives and families. By correcting or prevent social problems, they very much benefit the whole the society.Â*Â*

Talk such as yours is the destruction of civilization, your opinion as even a greater danger than external enemies.Â*Â* You must have been educated after 1958.Â*Â*It is so much fun to learn history through experience, and we are learning how past civilizations fell.Â*Â*Thank you for the lesson.

[Nathan Brazil]

Excuse me, but your statement is so rude.Â*Â*Some of us believe the best use of our lives is helping others, and yet this should not mean our families, our children, endure poverty and deprivation.Â*Â*Those who do the most for humanity, deserve pay equal to the good they are doing, and all the dignity, respect and social benefits of middle class working people.Â*Â*I am a care giver and while the people in your life may be drinkers and drug users, the people in my life are care givers.Â*Â*This is the work women once did as a matter of being women, and men supported them.Â*Â*Today men are not supporting women, and they must earn a living.Â*Â*Their work has social value, and can save lives and families.Â*Â*By correcting or prevent social problems, they very much benefit the whole the society.Â*Â*

Talk such as yours is the destruction of civilization, your opinion as even a greater danger than external enemies.Â*Â* You must have been educated after 1958.Â*Â*It is so much fun to learn history through experience, and we are learning how past civilizations fell.Â*Â*Thank you for the lesson.


No. You made a choice to work in a field that pays less than dirt. You can justify it all you want as a "benefit to humanity" or whatever, but the bottom line is you made a choice. Quit whining about it, if you wanted better pay you should have picked a different profession.

I build weapons delivery platforms myself.

[Elrathin]

Sorry but not all people that drink alcohol don't drink till they pass out. It is about PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY. If you don't have it, that is your problem. Why should I suffer because some fool doesn't know how to control himself/herself.

I brew my own beer and I consume maybe 2-4 bottles a week. Not everyone that drinks alcohol is a drunk or abuses it.

I just don't understand the obsession lately with supporting the government dictating to us what is good what is bad. Are we all frigging robots now that can't take control of our lives, that we must now have others to tell us what is right and what is wrong?

[Athena]

Excuse me, but your statement is so rude.Â*Â*Some of us believe the best use of our lives is helping others, and yet this should not mean our families, our children, endure poverty and deprivation.Â*Â*Those who do the most for humanity, deserve pay equal to the good they are doing, and all the dignity, respect and social benefits of middle class working people.Â*Â*I am a care giver and while the people in your life may be drinkers and drug users, the people in my life are care givers.Â*Â*This is the work women once did as a matter of being women, and men supported them.Â*Â*Today men are not supporting women, and they must earn a living.Â*Â*Their work has social value, and can save lives and families.Â*Â*By correcting or prevent social problems, they very much benefit the whole the society.Â*Â*

Talk such as yours is the destruction of civilization, your opinion as even a greater danger than external enemies.Â*Â* You must have been educated after 1958.Â*Â*It is so much fun to learn history through experience, and we are learning how past civilizations fell.Â*Â*Thank you for the lesson.


No.Â*Â*You made a choice to work in a field that pays less than dirt.Â*Â*You can justify it all you want as a "benefit to humanity" or whatever, but the bottom line is you made a choice.Â*Â*Quit whining about it, if you wanted better pay you should have picked a different profession.

I build weapons delivery platforms myself.



I do not like conversing with rude and offensive people.

[Athena]

Sorry but not all people that drink alcohol don't drink till they pass out.Â*Â*It is about PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY.Â*Â*If you don't have it, that is your problem.Â*Â*Why should I suffer because some fool doesn't know how to control himself/herself.

I brew my own beer and I consume maybe 2-4 bottles a week.Â*Â*Not everyone that drinks alcohol is a drunk or abuses it.

I just don't understand the obsession lately with supporting the government dictating to us what is good what is bad.Â*Â*Are we all frigging robots now that can't take control of our lives, that we must now have others to tell us what is right and what is wrong?



I don't think anyone has said the government should ban alcohol. Seems like people are arguing for legal booze.

[Elrathin]

I don't think anyone has said the government should ban alcohol. Seems like people are arguing for legal booze.


Well since the title of this thread is "Should alcohol be banned?", I am assuming that is only going to happen through the government and the the original poster is in favor of banning alcohol. How else would it be banned?

[Nathan Brazil]

Excuse me, but your statement is so rude.Â*Â*Some of us believe the best use of our lives is helping others, and yet this should not mean our families, our children, endure poverty and deprivation.Â*Â*Those who do the most for humanity, deserve pay equal to the good they are doing, and all the dignity, respect and social benefits of middle class working people.Â*Â*I am a care giver and while the people in your life may be drinkers and drug users, the people in my life are care givers.Â*Â*This is the work women once did as a matter of being women, and men supported them.Â*Â*Today men are not supporting women, and they must earn a living.Â*Â*Their work has social value, and can save lives and families.Â*Â*By correcting or prevent social problems, they very much benefit the whole the society.Â*Â*

Talk such as yours is the destruction of civilization, your opinion as even a greater danger than external enemies.Â*Â* You must have been educated after 1958.Â*Â*It is so much fun to learn history through experience, and we are learning how past civilizations fell.Â*Â*Thank you for the lesson.


No.Â*Â*You made a choice to work in a field that pays less than dirt.Â*Â*You can justify it all you want as a "benefit to humanity" or whatever, but the bottom line is you made a choice.Â*Â*Quit whining about it, if you wanted better pay you should have picked a different profession.

I build weapons delivery platforms myself.



I do not like conversing with rude and offensive people.Â*Â*


I didn't really stating obvious truths was rude. Offensive, maybe, that's that's tough, isn't it?

[longjonsilver]

The practical move that should take place is to only partially legalize alcohol. The problem we have today is that even those who drink legally sometimes do so to a level that is an imminent threat to there lives. Therefore when they come into the hospital with a bad case of alcohol poisoning and no health insurance then the hospital can't turn them down, so you and I become the health insurance through our tax dollars. Thats an infringement upon my rights that someone can self mutalate themselves at the cost of my wallet. For this reason I believe that alcohol should only be legal for those with health insurance. We place te same type laws on driving, where it is illegal to drive a car without car insurance, so we should also do it with cigarettes and alcohol.

[Athena]

The practical move that should take place is to only partially legalize alcohol.Â*Â*The problem we have today is that even those who drink legally sometimes do so to a level that is an imminent threat to there lives.Â*Â*Therefore when they come into the hospital with a bad case of alcohol poisoning and no health insurance then the hospital can't turn them down, so you and I become the health insurance through our tax dollars.Â*Â*Thats an infringement upon my rights that someone can self mutalate themselves at the cost of my wallet.Â*Â*For this reason I believe that alcohol should only be legal for those with health insurance.Â*Â*We place te same type laws on driving, where it is illegal to drive a car without car insurance, so we should also do it with cigarettes and alcohol.


Well, that may sound practical, but it is further establishing a privileged class. Many people can not afford medical insurance, and a law that favors only those who can afford medical insurance is unjust. I also remember when it wasn't law to have car insurance, and I don't think it is just to require everyone to have car insurance. Insure yourself against uninsured motorist, but don't put people in a situation where they they are force to drive illegally. But this driving thing can a whole different issue, involving city planning and public transportation, and child care, and minimum wage. What a nightmare.

We tax booze. Now shouldn't that tax cover hospital cost and treatment?

[Nathan Brazil]

ummmm...what's wrong with letting people who drink themselves into a toxic life-threatening stupor die?Â*Â*Is there some rational justification for curtailing the liberty of those who can handle alcohol simply because those that can't won't stop using the stuff?


This sounds harsh...then again, I don't see any reason why I should care about the drunken sots, anyway.Â*Â*They did make a choice, after all, didn't they?

[Nathan Brazil]

The practical move that should take place is to only partially legalize alcohol.Â*Â*The problem we have today is that even those who drink legally sometimes do so to a level that is an imminent threat to there lives.Â*Â*Therefore when they come into the hospital with a bad case of alcohol poisoning and no health insurance then the hospital can't turn them down, so you and I become the health insurance through our tax dollars.Â*Â*Thats an infringement upon my rights that someone can self mutalate themselves at the cost of my wallet.Â*Â*For this reason I believe that alcohol should only be legal for those with health insurance.Â*Â*We place te same type laws on driving, where it is illegal to drive a car without car insurance, so we should also do it with cigarettes and alcohol.


Well, that may sound practical, but it is further establishing a privileged class.Â*Â*Many people can not afford medical insurance, and a law that favors only those who can afford medical insurance is unjust.Â*Â*I also remember when it wasn't law to have car insurance, and I don't think it is just to require everyone to have car insurance.Â*Â*Insure yourself against uninsured motorist, but don't put people in a situation where they they are force to drive illegally.Â*Â*But this driving thing can a whole different issue, involving city planning and public transportation, and child care, and minimum wage.Â*Â*What a nightmare.

We tax booze.Â*Â*Now shouldn't that tax cover hospital cost and treatment?Â*Â*


Not everyone has to have car insurance. Only those people owning cars are required to carry insurance for that vehicle. Even then, an owner isn't required to have insurance, if he's capable of posting a bond that's equal to the minimum required insurance coverage.

If a person doesn't want to pay for car insurance, he doesn't have to own a car. That's not difficult, and it's very fair. The perfectly reasonable rationale behind this is that a car can do a heck of a lot of damage to other people, and other people's property, and it's the obvious responsibility of the owner to cover that potential.

People are never "forced" to drive illegally. Even if they don't have legs, they can still roll their wheelchairs downhill and coast a long way.

[Deacon]

I didn't read all the posts but if you read in history, not just the 1920's but before the the Civil War in the Antebellum period, alcohol was viewed as the source of social evils this sparked the "Temperance Movement" which was successful to a degree, and then everyone knows about the 1920's and the Jazz Age, which the prohibition period also pushed a mini-boom of alcohol which led to bootlegging and oldly enough NASCAR was formed by bootleggers, who raced their souped up autos that they used to smuggle Alcohol.

Prohibition was pretty much a failure, even the president had alcohol brought to his office. I doubt any ban on Alcohol today will work better than the past, kids as young as 12 are drinking alcohol in America, I think that more laws should be focused on keeping it out of their hands, then the hands of those legal to drink.

-NVP21

[bobbylien]

Well, that may sound practical, but it is further establishing a privileged class. Many people can not afford medical insurance, and a law that favors only those who can afford medical insurance is unjust. I also remember when it wasn't law to have car insurance, and I don't think it is just to require everyone to have car insurance. Insure yourself against uninsured motorist, but don't put people in a situation where they they are force to drive illegally. But this driving thing can a whole different issue, involving city planning and public transportation, and child care, and minimum wage. What a nightmare.

We tax booze. Now shouldn't that tax cover hospital cost and treatment?

But things like alcohol are major contributors to those who can't afford things like car insurance. Putting something like that into place would only help the poor. The poor need all of the help they can get.

[longjonsilver]

Banning alcohol for those without health insurance would allow for the government to drop its tax levels on alcohol back to the standard sales tax level. Because as I said before we would no longer have to pay the medicaid bills of those who induce alcohol poisoning upon themselves. Nathan, I do agree with you that it is the fault of those who drink in excess if they recieve alcohol poisoning, however I just couldnt bring myself to allow them to die. Also, just to throw a few more of my opinions in, I would like to see the marketing of alcohol privatised. The government has steped to far in its pine for power, by prohibiting grocery and other stores from selling liquor.

[Athena]

The practical move that should take place is to only partially legalize alcohol.Â*Â*The problem we have today is that even those who drink legally sometimes do so to a level that is an imminent threat to there lives.Â*Â*Therefore when they come into the hospital with a bad case of alcohol poisoning and no health insurance then the hospital can't turn them down, so you and I become the health insurance through our tax dollars.Â*Â*Thats an infringement upon my rights that someone can self mutalate themselves at the cost of my wallet.Â*Â*For this reason I believe that alcohol should only be legal for those with health insurance.Â*Â*We place te same type laws on driving, where it is illegal to drive a car without car insurance, so we should also do it with cigarettes and alcohol.


Well, that may sound practical, but it is further establishing a privileged class.Â*Â*Many people can not afford medical insurance, and a law that favors only those who can afford medical insurance is unjust.Â*Â*I also remember when it wasn't law to have car insurance, and I don't think it is just to require everyone to have car insurance.Â*Â*Insure yourself against uninsured motorist, but don't put people in a situation where they they are force to drive illegally.Â*Â*But this driving thing can a whole different issue, involving city planning and public transportation, and child care, and minimum wage.Â*Â*What a nightmare.

We tax booze.Â*Â*Now shouldn't that tax cover hospital cost and treatment?Â*Â*


Not everyone has to have car insurance.Â*Â*Only those people owning cars are required to carry insurance for that vehicle.Â*Â*Even then, an owner isn't required to have insurance, if he's capable of posting a bond that's equal to the minimum required insurance coverage.

If a person doesn't want to pay for car insurance, he doesn't have to own a car.Â*Â*That's not difficult, and it's very fair.Â*Â*The perfectly reasonable rationale behind this is that a car can do a heck of a lot of damage to other people, and other people's property, and it's the obvious responsibility of the owner to cover that potential.Â*Â*

People are never "forced" to drive illegally.Â*Â*Even if they don't have legs, they can still roll their wheelchairs downhill and coast a long way.


Alcohol can result in a lot of damage and I say it is those who profit from the damage who should be held responsible for covering that potential.Â*Â*

And about not being forced to drive illegally.Â*Â*What do you consider force?Â*Â*I consider pressures to care for self and family significant force, and when we traveled by horse, it was forbidden to take a man's horse.
Making it law to insure our cars, has corrupted the car insurance business, and I will stay with if you want protection, buy your own protection and don't make me pay for it.Â*Â* Suing people for damages has corrupted our court system, and may be there is a better way.Â*

With alcohol we know there are social cost, so the product should cover the social cost, of accidents related to alcohol, hospitalizations and treatment. Isn't it dumb for health insurance companies to pay for this when the problem is not caused by health insurance companies? Everyone who buys health insurance that covers medical problems caused by alcohol is paying premiums to cover someone's treatment.
Only a drinker wouldn't want to this cost passed on to the price of alcohol. Â*

[Nathan Brazil]

Alcohol can result in a lot of damage and I say it is those who profit from the damage who should be held responsible for covering that potential.

Oh, you mean the insurance companies. They're to only ones that profit from the damage irresponsible drinking causes, after all, they're charging a premium to cover just that.


And about not being forced to drive illegally.Â*Â*What do you consider force?

Guns. Clubs. Threats of physical violence. Threats of jail. That's force. Not being able to get to work in your own car isn't "force", that's a freely made choice.

I consider pressures to care for self and family significant force,

Well, you're wrong.

and when we traveled by horse, it was forbidden to take a man's horse.

Well, even now, when we don't travel by horse very much, it's still forbidden to take his horse. That's called "stealing".

Making it law to insure our cars, has corrupted the car insurance business, and I will stay with if you want protection, buy your own protection and don't make me pay for it.

Uh...yeah. That's what insurance does. I haven't seen anyone volunteering to pay for my car insurance lately. Do you have to beat them off with a club or something?

Suing people for damages has corrupted our court system, and may be there is a better way.Â*

New York has true no-fault insurance, and it used to do a really good job of keeping the parasites away.

With alcohol we know there are social cost, so the product should cover the social cost, of accidents related to alcohol, hospitalizations and treatment.

What, you mean someone else besides the alky should pay for his repeated visits to the rehab clinic? No, that's silly. I don't care about him, let'im die if he can't control himself.

You mean the general public should carry the costs of some drunk doing something stupid? They do, it's part of the insurance rider.

Isn't it dumb for health insurance companies to pay for this when the problem is not caused by health insurance companies?

Not really. That's what insurance is for, the unexpected. It's far better than trying to create a government bureaucracy to collect taxes and do it.

Everyone who buys health insurance that covers medical problems caused by alcohol is paying premiums to cover someone's treatment.

Oh, no, not a dime of insurance money should go to treating drunks. They should pay for it out of their own pocket or die. It's their choice.

Only a drinker wouldn't want to this cost passed on to the price of alcohol.

That's a peculiar assumption to make. Wrong, too.

[bobbylien]

Alcohol can result in a lot of damage and I say it is those who profit from the damage who should be held responsible for covering that potential.

That is where i disagree with you. If alcohol is going to be legal, companies that make it should be allowed to sell it without penalty. If they are promoting it to kids and stuff like that, they need to be punished. But promoting use of their product is nothing new.


Only a drinker wouldn't want to this cost passed on to the price of alcohol.

I am not a drinker and I don't think its right.


I think its really selfish to put my right to get wasted ahead of the hundreds of thousands of people who are harmed by alcohol every year.

[Nathan Brazil]

Actually, though, Athena's right, insofar is making the consumers of the junk pay for the costs, if and only if one agrees with her assumption that people that drink need a baby sitter.

IMO, people that drink irresponsibly should suffer whatever fate their irresponsible behaviors sets them up for. If they get a dead liver, too bad. Other people that drink in moderation shouldn't have to pay an extra fee just because someone else is trying to pickle themselves.


But, compared to the present circumstance where everyone is taxed to support the drunkards, taxing only those people actually use the stuff is preferable. Think of it as a user fee.

[longjonsilver]

Insurance was created exactly for this reason and already covers the cost of drinking related health problems to those who have insurance. When you purchase insurance they ask you questions such as "Do you smoke?" By doing this they adjust the cost and allow for only those who drink to pay for the problems associated with drinking. This prevents someone who abstains from drinking from having to carry the cost of injury.

Nathan, you are right about the drunks who drink to the level to put there life in danger, it is most definatly there fault. I would like to agree with you that they deserve whatever comes to them, however they are human and im just not sure if I could allow someone to die like that.

Bobbylein, I completly agree with you that if something is legalized then the producers should have no obligation to pay for the irresponsible actions of the users. We don't charge Ford every time somebody drives wrecklessly, therefore we shouldn't charge Budweiser every time someone drinks wrecklessly.

Athena, not one health problem is caused by the insurance company. Alcohol posoning, heart attacks, or strokes are all caused by the individual or something other than the health insurance companies however it is their duty to pay for the damages caused by the problems because that is what they have pledged to do.

Of course requiring health insurance to drink isn't a flawless answer to the problems of drinking, however it is the best choice available. Nathan sugests that we should let those who drink in excess die and as much as I agree with that policy we clearly can't enact something so barbaric. Athena proposed that we tax the alcohol companies for the damages when, just as I said before, they haven't done anything wrong. The last remaining option is to place the burden of paying for the damages on the tax payer through medicaid. This is possibly the most rediculous plan, to expect for all citizens to pay for the irresponsible actions of another individual. For these reasons the best option is to only allow drinking for those who have health insurance, because this places the costs of the damages on only those who drink to a jeopardous level.

[bobbylien]

IMO, people that drink irresponsibly should suffer whatever fate their irresponsible behaviors sets them up for. If they get a dead liver, too bad. Other people that drink in moderation shouldn't have to pay an extra fee just because someone else is trying to pickle themselves.

Completely agree. My thoughts on alcohol arent because I want to save those who are addicted. I want to save those who are effected by it without ever using it themselves. It affects tens of thousands of INNOCENT adults and children every year. Everyone has a right to do whatever the hell they want to themselves, so long as it doesnt negatively affect another innocent life.

One more thing... charging the alcohol companies for health problems would be the same as putting a tax on the consumers. The alcohol companies would just pass the cost right to the consumers to make up for their losses.

[Athena]

IMO, people that drink irresponsibly should suffer whatever fate their irresponsible behaviors sets them up for.Â*Â*If they get a dead liver, too bad.Â*Â*Other people that drink in moderation shouldn't have to pay an extra fee just because someone else is trying to pickle themselves.Â*Â*

Completely agree. My thoughts on alcohol arent because I want to save those who are addicted. I want to save those who are effected by it without ever using it themselves. It affects tens of thousands of INNOCENT adults and children every year. Everyone has a right to do whatever the hell they want to themselves, so long as it doesnt negatively affect another innocent life.

One more thing... charging the alcohol companies for health problems would be the same as putting a tax on the consumers. The alcohol companies would just pass the cost right to the consumers to make up for their losses.


This arguement is as good as saying no should have to pay for car insurance until getting a ticket for bad driving or causing an accident.
Anyone who consumes alcohol on a regular bases is taking the risk of addiction and other health problems. There appears to be a clear genetic link to alcoholism, so some people may be more aware of the potential of become alcoholic than others. Whatever, there is a risk for everyone, so everyone needs to be covered for treatment. Just like driving a car puts a person in risk for accidents. Some people never get tickets and never get into accidents, but all drivers are to be insured. I don't think this is the best way to cover the risk of driving, but do think it is right to have a way of covering the cost of risk.

[Athena]

Oregon:

FAILED

Senate Bill 1049 would have given counties the right to add a fee of 10 cents to every can of beer sold in their county. The fee would have been collected by the State of Oregon and placed in a new Malt Beverage Cost Recovery Fee Fund, and then returned to the counties that originally imposed the fee. Impressively, the fee would have been indexed to inflation. Revenue from the fee would explicitly fund alcohol prevention, enforcement, and treatment programs.

If you want to know if your state is considering increasing a tax on booze go to:

2005 State Tax Proposals The House approved it the second week of April, but on May 24th, the Senate Finance Committee removed the alcohol tax increases from the bill. Oregon: ...
www.cspinet.org/booze/taxguide/ 2005/2005TaxStateUpdate.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

[Mayberry]

I very highly doubt average middle class beer drinking americans would start doing it illegally. Wanna bet? Middle class Joe Average loves his beer. Nothing like a cold beer after a hard day's work. Nothing wrong with it either. We can't go on "protecting" dim witted twits from themselves. The practice infringes on my right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The left wing socialist attitude that has infected our country is to blame for the effects on everyone's pocketbook. Banning alcohol, which we have established is not possible, will only open the door to the next "social problem". Ban Big Macs, Bar-B-Q, personal automobiles, air conditioning, electricity, hell everything invented since 1835. It's all bad for society, and costs everyone money. We need to go back to the concept of "personal responsibility". Remember that? All this Dr. Phil B.S. psychobabble is a load of crap, pardon my french. People know damn well what they're doing, when they do it. Your abusive daddy didn't make you do it. It's not because of the disorder de jour. YOU did it, own up to it, and take responsibility for it. This touchy feely stuff has run it's course, costs too much money, and needs to go away. Only then will our liberty be saved.

[ECW]

Throw down some serious punishment on those who abuse alcohol and then cause damage to another and you will see a change in attitude real quick. I'm not saying you cannot drink or should not drink, just that you are responsible for what you do when you do drink.

Lock a body up for a year causing an accident while driving drunk and you will get everyone's attention. Slap a manditory ten year sentence on someone who kills someone while driving drunk and you have a new world.

[bobbylien]

Slap a manditory ten year sentence on someone who kills someone while driving drunk and you have a new world.

How about 25 to life.

[bobbylien]

I have no problem with people getting drunk and ruining their lives, so long as it doesn't ruin somebody elses life. Too many innocent people are killed by alcohol related incidents every year, its not worth it.

[ECW]

Slap a manditory ten year sentence on someone who kills someone while driving drunk and you have a new world.

How about 25 to life.


That sentence should be reserved for people who commit murder with intent.

A ten year sentence is enough to punish a person and, hopefully, make them realize that their actions have consequences, consequences that they must pay for. They are not going to be able to bring that life back but they should be given an opportunity to re-start their own life once they have paid their debt to society. 25 years won't allow that to happen but ten will and perhaps they can become a viable member of society.

The alcohol lobby is so strong in this country that it took an organization like MADD to get laws passed that would even punish drunk drivers effectively in the first place.

[preservanation]

*HICK*
........
What?

[micfranklin]

Supporting another Prohibition in the 21st Century? It's gonna be no different than the War on drugs, how's that working out for us?

[preservanation]

Supporting another Prohibition in the 21st Century? It's gonna be no different than the War on drugs, how's that working out for us?
Lousy!
No progress and billions spent on feel good policy which adds to a bureaucracy which serves only to beget more bureaucracy which does nothing.
What's your point?

[PatrickHenry]

I am in favor of allowing "the People" to decide what to ingest.

Driving while impaired by substances should be met with severe penalties.

I choose to rarely drink alcoholic beverages. About once every six months I have something to drink.

I don't smoke reefer either.

I just don't like giving the cops any more causes to arrest people than absolutely necessary.

[preservanation]

So, basically go along with anything, as long as you don't get in "trouble"?
Sweet!
We're all doomed!

[micfranklin]

Supporting another Prohibition in the 21st Century? It's gonna be no different than the War on drugs, how's that working out for us?
Lousy!
No progress and billions spent on feel good policy which adds to a bureaucracy which serves only to beget more bureaucracy which does nothing.
What's your point?


History says it didn't work then so why would it work now?

[preservanation]

We agree.
I think.
Anyway Ikind of like you osooo..ilszzzzz......
Sorry, dozed there for a moment.
What were you saying?

[HumanBeast]

Lord no. Alcohol has been a part of human civilization from its beginning. I have another idea.


Some movie producer should make a movie or tv show where the main protagonist is a non-alcoholic average joe or jane that always comes out on top in every dilemma. Then people would look up to that character and want to be like him/her. I know it won't get rid of the problem completely but it's worth a shot.

[lawless168]

I am in favor of allowing "the People" to decide what to ingest.

I just don't like giving the cops any more causes to arrest people than absolutely necessary.


You obviously don't have any close family members that are addicts, because if you did, I think you would feel differently about letting these drugs be legalized...

[Deadshot]

I am in favor of allowing "the People" to decide what to ingest.

I just don't like giving the cops any more causes to arrest people than absolutely necessary.


You obviously don't have any close family members that are addicts, because if you did, I think you would feel differently about letting these drugs be legalized...


Lawless, you have a point, but we allow people to do drugs, legal ones, all the time. Alcohol and cigerettes (or simply tobacco products) kill people daily. They are addictive. But I can have a glass of wine or a few beers and am fine. Though I've never smoked, I'm sure I could enjoy a pipe or stogie. Why must my life choices, i.e. doing drugs, be influenced by the worst possible outcomes?

From the literature I've read and people I've arrested, pot isn't that bad. Far less damaging and threatening then alcohol. I've also read testaments and see evidence where people can use cocaine and not have it take over their lives.

I understand you're statement lawless, and it holds more merit then mine, without question. Drugs, legal and illegal, can and do destroy people - and their friends and familys. But if we're going to be a society that gives a 'wink and a nod' to the tobacco or alcohol addict and then turn and attempt to crucify the illegal drug user, well IMHO that's bullshit.

Either make them all illegal (not going to happen) or legalize them all (not going to happen) or realize that drugs can fuck people up and do your best to help any drug abuser and work to treat the problem, instead of locking people up all the time.

[lawless168]

So you are saying making all drugs legal will somehow make things better? LMAO

I've done about every drug under the sun bro, yes meth, coke, acid blah blah.... The shit should be illegal, cause if it wasn’t, I’d prolly be dead right now, NO I take that back, I would be dead.

Be careful for what you wish for ……:peace:

:jammin:Oh Thunderhead, you're a man with a problem
Ahh - old habits too hard to break
And soon you'll be dead from that poison that you're on
Oh - the venom that's worse that the snakes

Thunderhead - yes I am your master
Will you steal for me - yes
Will you ruin yourself and give everything unto me - yes
Will you lie, cheat, deceive, dishonor everything
And even kill thy brother for me, yes - yes
Will you worship only me as your true master. Yes
Thunderhead, will you die for me, yes master:jammin:

[Deadshot]

So you are saying making all drugs legal will somehow make things better? LMAO

No, please re-read above, where I clearly state that while we will never be able to legalize them all, nor can we make the ones we currently have illegal. But we can strive to help those addicted to drugs, as opposed to throwing them in jail.

I've done about every drug under the sun bro, yes meth, coke, acid blah blah.... The shit should be illegal, cause if it wasn’t, I’d prolly be dead right now, NO I take that back, I would be dead.

Be careful for what you wish for ……:peace:


Fine, but you used them and are still alive, which was an earlier point. Also I know people who smoke pot, regularly, the same way people have a drink after work - to take the edge off. Not all drugs are horrible, just as not all drugs are great.

We need a gray area in our country. We also need to help the addict with treatment, not incarceration - which is my main point.

[PatrickHenry]

I am in favor of allowing "the People" to decide what to ingest.

I just don't like giving the cops any more causes to arrest people than absolutely necessary.


You obviously don't have any close family members that are addicts, because if you did, I think you would feel differently about letting these drugs be legalized...
You're quite mistaken. My father was an alcohol addict. My wife is recently sober after many years of alcohol abuse. Both were cigarette smokers and it killed my dad with emphysema. My wife has whipped tobacco and has eight months of sobriety.

I was a cannabis addict for fifteen years.

Tell you what...Show me how the War On Drugs is being won... Show me who the winners are and I'll show you who I think the winners are.

Using drugs is a choice. One that is made without consideration of the legalities. We make our choices not upon what is legal, but upon the information we have about the desirability of the choice.

Accurate information about the consequences of using various drugs is far more effective in determining drug use than any other consideration.

If I want to smoke me some ice...I could get some today...

I choose to be sober.

But some folks like having a Police State that tells everybody what to do. Not me.

[Truth_and_Power]

Yeah ban it all, remove the dept of education from the federal budget and give halliburton a 300 billion/year contract to infinity to run all the prisons around the nation. See you in hell..

[MAP2010.wireless]

The problems that alcohol causes every day in our country cannot be denied. Is it really worth the price? Alcohol is a much bigger problem then the war in iraq. Its bigger than abortion and gay marriage. Bigger than the immigration debate. This is the biggest issue facing our country right now. I'm wondering what you people think possibly banning alcohol.

Read this entire page and tell me alcohol is worth it.
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/factsheets/general_information.htm

In 2000, there were approximately 85,000 deaths attributable to either excessive or risky drinking in the U.S., making alcohol the third leading actual cause of death (Mokdad, 2004).



No, but it should be limited on what strength it should be.
Marijuana should replace tobacco and should replace trees in making paper. And its THC level should be lowered and watched.

I don't do any drugs or Drink but Its better then hard alcohol.

(Pot Pubs)

Mark

[Truth_and_Power]

With or without substance being legal there are still users and abusers.

Yes, but there would be less. I very highly doubt average middle class beer drinking americans would start doing it illegally.
A ban on alcohol will never happen because if people are ever smart enough to see the horrors that alcohol causes, they would stop drinking.


Well I'm hardly average but I can guarantee you I'd be making my own wine before the ink dried on the new law.