Alcohol should be banned

[DragonofAna]

Wasn't I posting on here several days ago? You're just upset that I don't have time to continually monitor threads to help you out.

 

Your reasons are based on ignorance, demonstrated by the fact that you didn't believe that moderate drinking was good for your health.

Now you've been partially enlightened, have another think about it.

 

Personally, I like to have opinions, but I like to base them on something I can use to explain and justify them, that way I can expect other people to take them seriously, rather than dismiss them out of hand as the rantings of an ignoramus.

 

You never change your tune do you? Well at least that's something we can rely on. Everyone who says anything you disagree with is ignorant. From the posts you comment on here - why are you posting on here - you should be licing it up in luxury as the most learned person on the planey.

 

I like being an ignoramus. It feels good. Does it bother you that much? Wonderful - I'll keep on.

 

Here's a little helper for you -

The thread asks if Alcohol should be banned. I said that I believed it should but agreed that such was a silly idea because it could not be enforced. I went on to explaine my personal reasons for supporting a ban. They don't have to go with what you believe. They are my reasons. And you can conjure up any figures you want to support or not to support how healthy alcohol is/isn't.

Couple of months ago a few glasses of wine were good for you; couple of weeks later a few glasses were bad for you; couple of weeks later a glass was good for you; couple of weeks later even that is bad for you. And so on.

 

Your facts are flawed - whatever facts you are supposed to be putting forward. And you can go to "We Love Alcohol.com" and "Drunks are the healthiest people on earth.com" to get your stats - does not make them correct.

[Phanerothyme]

It looks like you didn't bother to learn anything about the subject DoA, you just continued your argument on the basis that some people might be violent when drunk and some people are sick in the street when drunk.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217973.300-science-is-a-tipple-really-good-for-your-heart.html

 

From that article:

The researchers say they have new data to support earlier, controversial studies claiming that moderate drinkers are less likely to suffer from coronary heart disease than heavy drinkers or teetotallers. But another leading epidemiologist has criticised the researchers' conclusions, and says the meeting appears to have been 'misleading' and 'biased'.

 

The meeting was funded by the alcohol industry. Many of the participants were apparently not aware of this, while others stressed that they received no research money from the industry. Meanwhile Gerry Shaper of the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London, who did not attend the meeting but whose research is in this field, says he is concerned that only one side of the argument seems to have been presented.

 

The alcohol industry is a venerable and powerful lobby group and will work hard to make sure that young people take up drinking. Their PR companies funded the whole scare about ecstasy after the death of Leah Betts.

 

Alcohol may have medicinal benefits, just like nicotine. That's not an argument against tighter controls, higher taxes on alcohol or policies designed to reduce consumption.

[NoddyHolder]

idiots dont deserve freedom of choice, im an anarchist ...total freedom, but when the freedom interferes with anbody elses freedom / life then i shall remove it

its not about chaos.........its about a better world

Im an anarchist...total freedom :hihi:..Tell me who do you work for ?

Iv heard it all now..fell off my chair I was laughing that much...next thing we will have Halibut telling us he lifts weights

[Halibut]

 

I like being an ignoramus. It feels good.

 

I really don't understand why you said that. It strikes me as being really, really sad, whether meant in jest or not.

[Phanerothyme]

The topic, people! ffs.

[Phanerothyme]

If we could shift a significant part of the population away from alcohol and onto other, less damaging drugs (in terms of their cascade effect as well as their direct toxicity), something like the NHS would run a lot more smoothly and cheaply.

 

Harm reduction is the only sane policy when it comes to drugs.

[DragonofAna]

If we could shift a significant part of the population away from alcohol and onto other, less damaging drugs (in terms of their cascade effect as well as their direct toxicity), something like the NHS would run a lot more smoothly and cheaply.

 

Harm reduction is the only sane policy when it comes to drugs.

 

I'm not sure the case is proved for these other drugs. I recall one time of day when cigarettes were advertised and put forward as being good for your health. That all changed rather quickly. Same could happen for others - even cannabis - though I doubt it.

Course - if they legalise cannabis who is to say they will not add something to make it as addictive and harmful as tobacco?

Same goes for other drugs.

[milquetoast1]

If we could shift a significant part of the population away from alcohol and onto other, less damaging drugs (in terms of their cascade effect as well as their direct toxicity), something like the NHS would run a lot more smoothly and cheaply.

 

Harm reduction is the only sane policy when it comes to drugs.

 

You've just reminded me of these comments by Ben Goldacre:

 

Drugs instantiate the classic problem for evidence based social policy. It may well be that prohibition, and the inevitable distribution of drugs by criminals, gives worse results for all the outcomes we think are important, like harm to the user, harm to our communities through crime, and so on. But equally, it may well be that we will tolerate these worse outcomes, because we decide it is somehow more important that we publicly declare ourselves, as a culture, to be disapproving of drug use, and enshrine that principle in law. It’s okay to do that. You can have policies that go against your stated outcomes, for moral or political reasons: but that doesn’t mean you can hide the evidence, it simply means you must be clear that you don’t care about it.

 

Society seems to have decided that it doesn't care about the evidence, it just doesn't like drugs and that is that. A bit like Frank Skinner's attitude to alcohol ... I simply don't like it, so nobody else should be allowed to drink it.

 

I find this attitude somewhat childish and self destructive. I wonder if this attitude has evolved due to the way we measure our own happiness against that of others?

 

Frank Skinner doesn't drink anymore, so he would be happier if nobody else was. Ann Widdecombe isn't getting laid, so she would like society to return to those old fashioned Biblical principles so nobody else was either. Perhaps societies attitude to drugs is similar.

[DragonofAna]

I think it is more a case of - I do drugs but why should everyone else have the right? If everyone goes out and buys drugs the price could increase and I will not be able to afford them.

 

I don't do drugs by the way.

[Rupert_Baehr]

... A bit like Frank Skinner's attitude to alcohol ... I simply don't like it, so nobody else should be allowed to drink it.

 

...

Frank Skinner doesn't drink anymore, so he would be happier if nobody else was. Ann Widdecombe isn't getting laid, so she would like society to return to those old fashioned Biblical principles so nobody else was either.

 

''Banning things because I don't like to do them" is a British habit. (It hasn't been around for 100 years, so it's not a tradition; nor has it been around for long enough to be properly classed as a 'custom'- but it's certainly becoming a habit. )

 

Why not ban alcohol in the UK and accept that other countries act differently? If you were to ban alcohol in the UK, that would satisfy those who don't drink it and don't want others to drink it either and it would give the masses yet another reason to complain about restrictive rules in England and how things are so much cheaper and life is so much more relaxed elsewhere.

 

Surely that would please nearly all of the people nearly all of the time?