Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
Well hey, I don't even mind alcohol. I don't think there's anything wrong with alcohol in general. You're absolutely right, it should be considered a personal freedom. The problem is when people take such liberties too far and they interfere with the personal liberties of others. One can drink responsibly without getting completely bombed or drinking and driving. I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying a cold one or having a sip or two I suppose. But most people have a hard time stopping with that. Self-control seems to be a trait that many lack, and unfortunately, it ends up hurting people besides just themselves. That's what I oppose, and that's the core reason for my being opposed to the extremes of these substances--and the ones that alter human cognitive abilities in general.
I cannot see how any society needs drugs. I socialize with my friends just fine without them. For fun, I lift weights, I exercise, I read, play occasional video games, etc. None of my interactions in any of those activities create an unpleasant, unstable or potentially dangerous environment for those around me, because I am fully conscious and alert when partaking in each of them, and my brain chemicals are naturally functioning. The same could not be said if I was drunk or high. Then I would be mentally unstable, unpredictable, I could be angry, I could be happy even--but there'd be no way to tell what I'd be--my cognitive skills would be impaired etc., but I wouldn't be able to make the distinction not to operate machinery or drive, because I would be under the influence of a substance that impairs judgment. So I would be a danger to not only myself but much more importantly those around me. That's what I have a problem with.
|
Your attitude towards drugs is honorable, but I can't follow some of your conclusions. Many people tend to drive too fast with their cars. I know cars have a very important use, but the solution can not be to punish those who drive correctly. Why is it the right way for lets say alcohol. If there are people who are not acting in a responsible way, why punishing all people for it?
People who drink and drive are punished heavily, when they harm anyone under alcohol influence its easily possible that they ruined their entire financial existence for ever and thats good.
I have been drunk already fair number of times, I dare to say that I have drinking "under control" though. Even when I drink more I usually give it a rest after 2 liter beer or so. That hardly can be called excessive, especially as that does not so often anyway. Mostly I will only drink a beer or two and then at least as much for the taste as for anything else.
I know that people react differently to alcohol, from myself I can not confirm that I am "mentally unstable" under influence of alcohol. I may be sedated, and may dare a bit more than without alcohol, but I am not suddenly Mister Hide. I have been never involved in a fight so far, nor harmed a fly anything.
Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against strict age controls, anti drink and drive campaigns and punishments etc. Even the more for initiatives that help alcoholics to get a life again without alcohol. But what about the mass that consumes alcohol responsibly, do they deserve to be thrown into one pot with the others?
Quote:
|
As for prohibition--prohibition didn't create or contribute to crime. I understand the argument there, but I would say to pin the blame of organized crime on a government that passed legislation in order to ensure that such a substance would not be found in our society a tad bit unreasonable. Did the criminals not choose to commit the crimes? Were they not responsible for committing the crimes you speak of? This is simply a matter of free choice here. Just because there was demand for alcohol didn't mean people had to exploit it. They chose to and who were they? Criminals. Not society. There will always be a black market, an underground supply system for products in demand that are either illegal or overly priced. Does there have to be? No. Will that stop criminals? It doesn't seem like it. But does that mean societies should simply roll over and concede to the criminal mentality every time? I would say no.
|
Did I blame one? No, I just said what happened and it will happen again if prohibition should be enacted again. Of course one can say its the bad criminals who exploit it (and you could probably to so justifiably), but that won't change the result.
If I remember correctly the prohibition did not only contribute to crime by criminalizing large parts of the society and filling prisons but also because it was the starter money for the Italian mafia to vastly expand over the country and build a basis on which it could operate well also after prohibition was abandoned again.
Its like driving with a Bentley into the Bronx. Of course you can say its the criminals fault that it got stolen, but its not like you couldn't expect it.