Is It Time To Lower The Drinking Age?

[Marie-Therese]

Well, my plans for refuting havok's argument were derailed a little bit by some tornadoes and such last night. Just got my internet connection back about 15 minutes ago.

I come back and now he's moved on to guns?? I said I would quote every post he made; however, I reserve the right to exempt the gun comments, because that is a whole other topic and I only have so much patience.

It may take a while, but hopefully by the end of today I can finish. It may not bring havok to see the inconsistency of his argument, but at least I will fulfill my word.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='25 April 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1272230405' post='2099876']
Well, my plans for refuting havok's argument were derailed a little bit by some tornadoes and such last night. Just got my internet connection back about 15 minutes ago.

I come back and now he's moved on to guns?? I said I would quote every post he made; however, I reserve the right to exempt the gun comments, because that is a whole other topic and I only have so much patience.

It may take a while, but hopefully by the end of today I can finish. It may not bring havok to see the inconsistency of his argument, but at least I will fulfill my word.
[/quote]
Right now you're my favourite person!

[Ed Normile]

Well this was found as I was looking up a picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the open mic board and I remembered this drinking thread, so for your consideration......

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cq2Z1j3ugQs/Skjr1ODi04I/AAAAAAAAEeM/l6WuR2mDDCM/s400/3670476190_058b14fc84.jpg[/img]

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='25 April 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1272231867' post='2099892']
Well this was found as I was looking up a picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the open mic board and I remembered this drinking thread, so for your consideration......

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cq2Z1j3ugQs/Skjr1ODi04I/AAAAAAAAEeM/l6WuR2mDDCM/s400/3670476190_058b14fc84.jpg[/img]

ed
[/quote]
How irresponsible.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've found here an excerpt from the Rituale Romanum. It's a blessing for beer.

5. BLESSING OF BEER
P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: May He also be with you.
Let us pray.
Lord, bless this creature, beer, which by your kindness and power has been produced from kernels of grain, and let it be a healthful drink for mankind. Grant that whoever drinks it with thanksgiving to your holy name may find it a help in body and in soul; through Christ our Lord. All: Amen.
It is sprinkled with holy water.

[Lilllabettt]

Re: guns, drinking, drugs, etc.

Under the constraints of the American Constitution, the government has a right to regulate social behavior. There is no such thing as a "right to privacy." There is only a "right to freedom from scrutiny."

For example: drugs. The government can pass a law saying you can't have this or that drug. The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to pop open trunks without just cause, looking to see if you have that drug.

For example: sex. The government can pass a law banning certain kinds of sex. (e.g. sodomy.) The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to break down your bedroom door to find out if sodomy is going on.

The idea that Americans, as a principle, are free to do what they please, is a totally modern innovation crystalized by the Warren Court. It's based in a juris prudence which is nowadays roundly mocked: that of "emanating penumbras:" imagined shadows emanating from the Bill of Rights overlap to form amorphous things like the "right to privacy," which in turn turned into a woman's right to abort her baby.

Whether or not government regulation of this or that social behavior is necessary or prudent is another matter. But its hardly a violation of the law.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 April 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1272233140' post='2099905']
Re: guns, drinking, drugs, etc.

Under the constraints of the American Constitution, the government has a right to regulate social behavior.[/quote]

Under the constraints of the American Constitution (if there are any constraints) the united State government does not have rights, it has strictly enumerated powers.

[quote]
There is no such thing as a "right to privacy." There is only a "right to freedom from scrutiny."[/quote]

There is such a right to privacy. It's in the 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not beconstrued to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Just because it ain't written doesn't mean it ain't there. But then again, just because it [i]is[/i] written don't mean it is recognized by the united State.

Point out where Congress has the power to regulate social behavior. Article I, Section 8. Which sentence?

[quote]
For example: drugs. The government can pass a law saying you can't have this or that drug. The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to pop open trunks without just cause, looking to see if you have that drug.[/quote]

The mini-States may pass such statutes, according to the Constitution. The united State may not.

[quote]For example: sex. The government can pass a law banning certain kinds of sex. (e.g. sodomy.) The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to break down your bedroom door to find out if sodomy is going on.[/quote]

Ibid.

~Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

I am as opposed to unitary government as the next person.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 April 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1272235491' post='2099932']
I am as opposed to unitary government as the next person.
[/quote]

The next person is usually very much in favor of it. But we're talking about the Constitution and what it allows and disallows.

~Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='25 April 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1272235834' post='2099935']
The next person is usually very much in favor of it.

[/quote]

rotfl. true true

[Marie-Therese]

OK...as per my promise, here is a requote and response to every single post in the thread that you made, up until the argument became something about guns at the end of page 10. Posting in blocks because of the quote number restrictions.

Inital post:

[quote name='havok579257' date='17 April 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1271482959' post='2095042']
alcohol, except in places of worship should be illegal for everyone, for everyone.
[/quote]

Pretty cut and dry statement. No equivocation. Alcohol should be illegal outside of worship. Fine and dandy. You stated a clear and concise opinion. Might be an odd opinion, but still your opinion. Valid, clear, concise. Starting good.


And then we start to go downhill.

[quote name='havok579257' date='17 April 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1271520100' post='2095116']
not puritan. alcohol is a deadly drug. by having it legal, the laws concerning it are way more leanient. perfect example is drunk driving. you can get numerous dui's and still have a liscense. by making it illegal, then the laws become way more strict. anyone caught drunk driving goes to jail, end of story. drunk driving is the number one killer amoung younger people. making alcohol illegal drastically reduces the death rates of younger people. will peopleto still drink and drive? es. will it happen at the rate it happens at today? absolutly not.

i am all for making alcohol illegal if it means it can save millions of life. call me puritan if you want, i perfer to be called pro-life. this is an easy way to save millions of people, millions of them being completely innocent people hit by drunk drivers. its completely selfish not want to make alcohol illegal when it could and would and is guarentted to save millions of lives. i am more than willing to sacrifice the ability to use a drug so that millions of people can be saved.
[/quote]

I respect the position you posited here. However, I will state (as previously) that your continued assertion that reducing access to alcohol would somehow affect the rate at which it is consumed is erroneous. Granted, there might be a few people who would take advantage of using a substance were it legalized, but I suspect that the majority of people who do not use drugs don't do so because they are illegal. They choose not to use them because they don't want to do drugs. The same applies to alcohol. Plenty of people choose not to drink. It has nothing to do with whether or not the alcohol is legal. By the same token, alcohol IS illegal for those under the age of 21, and that is one of the age demographics which has the highest rate of consumption. So, the strategy of making a substance illegal didn't really work there.

[quote name='havok579257' date='18 April 2010 - 12:13 AM' timestamp='1271564007' post='2095386']
are you honestly trying to compare the death rate from drunk driving to cell phones and cd player. i bring up a legit point and you turn your argument into a joke. drunk driving is the number one killer amoung your adults and like the number 3 or 4 killer amoung everyone else. the deaths from drunk driving have been in the millions. although yet according to your logic, cd players and cell phones have killed millions of people. next time, come up with a legit argument.
[/quote]

Your tone here has started to become defensive and, frankly, a little pejorative. Arguing that distracted driving is a joke? Are you serious? There are a lot of parents with dead children who would probably rip you a new one for a flippant remark like that. Studies have consistently shown that driving distractedly (including, but not limited to, operating the radio, cell phone, cd player, eating, etc.) causes accidents at nearly the same rate as do those involving drunken driving. Read up on this subject before dismissing Nihil's VERY valid point out of hand.

[quote name='havok579257' date='18 April 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1271564118' post='2095387']
comparing abortion to death in war are two different things. death is war is some times permissable, abortion is never.
[/quote]

Not on topic. I am treating those responses dealing with the subject matter of Red's original post. Next.

[quote name='havok579257' date='18 April 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1271566567' post='2095435']
driving with distractions does not kill at the rate the same as drunk driving does. also, maybe people in other countries who don't drink and drive are the vast majority, but not in america. america has the higest drunk driving rates in the world, i think. i am also not talking abou the rest of the world since i have no clue what they do with drinking and driving. i am just talking about america and in america it is one of the biggest problems we face.

by making alcohol illegal in the states would greatly reduce the deaths by drunk driving. not just some, but greatly. also it would reduce the number of innocent people killed by drunk drivers. i would easily give up alcohol and make it illegal if it meant not another innocent child, mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, wiife or husband died at the hands of a drunk driver. why wouldn't you?
[/quote]

Here you restated the point you made in the post above. My response is the same.

[quote name='havok579257' date='18 April 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1271566912' post='2095442']
it comes to this. how many innocent people would still be alive today if alcohol was illegal even 10 years ago. how many innocent people have died at the hands of a drunk driver in the past year. can you honestly tell me, keeping alcohol legal is more important that all the innocent people who died at the drunk drivers hands? drunk driving is the number one killer amoung young adults. eliminating alcohol drastically reduces the mortality of young adults. the benefits of alcohol do not outway the lives it costs.
[/quote]

Your premise seems simply to hinge on your supposition that alcohol is a deadly scourge with no inherent value that is good only for causing death. Do deaths occur related to alcohol? You bet. Will making alcohol illegal reduce those deaths? Nope. There are a plethora of substances that routinely result in the death of innocent people. Are we, then, to follow your logic and outlaw every potential danger? You might argue that, of course, that isn't what you meant, and that is an absurd position. You'd be right. Outlawing a substance based on its presumptive danger to society toes a very fine line.

[Marie-Therese]

Post 2:

[quote name='havok579257' date='18 April 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1271567489' post='2095451']
guns, except in the case of military and police, i can agree with. also excluding hunters who actually use guns to hunt their own food. someone who without a gun would starve because they are unable to hunt for thier food. without guns, you dont need ammunition.

knifes- depends what kind your talking about. if its a basic knife used for your food or for some form of construction, then no it should not be illegal. the benifts of knives out weigh the amount of death that happen by them.

machetes- absolutly, unless you live in the jungle. what do you need one for except for killing or traveling in the jungle.

crowbars- same as the knives. the benifits of the crowbar outweigh the deaths from it.
[/quote]

Not related to alcohol. Next.

[quote name='havok579257' date='18 April 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1271567939' post='2095458']
not all weapons should be illegal, since almost anything can become a weapon. although in my mind, if the weapon's use outweighs the deaths it will cause, then its worth keeping around.

i don't really care if i get support on this or not. we alll know the amounts of deaths we have from most weapons. i don;t believe having the right to a gun is more important than the amount of lives that would be saved if we made all guns illgeal.
[/quote]

Not related to alcohol. Next.

[quote name='havok579257' date='21 April 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1271829047' post='2097227']
i don't consider drunk driving to be anymore illegal than jay walking. people can get up to 9 dui's and still be driving a year or 2 later. is that what you would call strict rules.

making alcohol illegal will drastically reduce the number of drunk drivers. just was making pot, cocaine, lsd and so on legal will mean more people will end up using the drug. by being illegal, it makes it harder to come by. sure, the addicts can get it and they will, but the average person will not be able to get it. which greatly reduces the number of dui's.
[/quote]

Uh, the first part of your post here makes no sense. Drunk driving is no more illegal than jaywalking, yet alcohol should be banned? Should all jaywalkers be shot on sight?

The second paragraph is where you continue to assert that criminalization of a substance leads to decreased crime. NO. NO NO NO. It does not. It leads to INCREASED crime.

I know that you are working off an assumption here that the average adult has an IQ of 12 and the self restraint of an English pea. You assume that simply because a substance is legal, people will suddenly have no problem loading up and having themselves a good acid trip every weekend. The so-called "average person" isn't a drug user!!! Making something legal does not make it somehow the hot new thing to do. Alcohol consumption did not go down during Prohibition. Crime, however, went up. And after Prohibition was repealed, the rate of drinking among the average population did not increase. People who drink, drink, regardless of legal status.

[quote name='havok579257' date='21 April 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1271829368' post='2097229']
so now someone who wants weapon reduction wants a nany state. i guess people who don't want a nanny state want every person have access to rocket launchers and wmd's. this point is unitelligent.

yes, but making guns illegal greatly reduces the number of guns and limits the number of times someone would need them.

and here you are again spewing liberal rhetoric. i said one thing and your twisting words to try and make your arguement. i believe its the role of the government to keep their people safe and provide them with the oppertunities to fullfill thier dreams. reducing guns and making them illegal will work to better keep society safe. unless your really going to tell me, if we drastically reduced guns and weapons, more people would die.
[/quote]

Guns yada yada yada. Next.

[quote name='havok579257' date='21 April 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1271829474' post='2097231']
this is the same kind of logic people use to say abortion should not be made illegal. they say until cultural attitudes change, people will not stop aborting babies, so we should not bother trying to make it illegal.
[/quote]

Abortion is not relevant to the topic. Next.

[quote name='havok579257' date='21 April 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1271907276' post='2097739']
the reason making alcohol illegal for anyone under 21 has not worked is because the laws are way to leanient. the fact that people can get up to 9 dui's and still be driving says it all. gun control would work if stricter laws were enforced. your agruement works now because of how pathetic the laws are. my theor works if we actually had a government who enforced laws to protect citizens. which is somethin i advocate but america has not been doing for decades.
[/quote]

Logical fallacy. The existing laws are not too lenient. Perhaps the punishments are. If laws are properly enforced and punishments "fit the crime," so to speak, I think that DUIs and other problems would be greatly lessened. A law that says something is illegal isn't lenient for the exact reason that the law MAKES IT ILLEGAL.

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1271909728' post='2097782']
well the question is kind of an oxymoron since when someone is drinking, even in moderation their intelligence drops. simple fact is, even one drink alters a person's mental state. it affects their decision making, their motor skills and so on. its no different then pot or any other altering drug. the fact is at the end of the day, its absolutly stupid to legalize alcohol(a chemical which alters a person's capabilities) yet making other drugs illegal. if you think there is nothing wrong with alcohol, then would you agree that pot should be illegal and so should other drugs? if not, then your argument has no ground. alcohol is a mind altering substance. same as other drugs. i believe anything that is going to alter one's mind and negatively affect them should be illegal. pot, lsd, meth are all illlegal and alter your mind the same as alcohol. they are no different.
[/quote]

Mind altering substances should be illegal. Reiterates your first post pretty solidly. If maintaining a person's "intelligence" is a concern of yours, then I think your first concern should be the schools and not alcohol.

[Marie-Therese]

Post 3:

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1271910521' post='2097795']
i never stated one has to be drunk to be impaired. science shows that even having one beer impairs a person. so unless your referring to only drinking say 1/4 of a beer, then your affected by the alcohol, no matter what people say about being fine after x number of beers.

i said drinking in moderation doesn't work since drinking even one beer impairs a person. again, unless your referring to only drinking 1/4 of a beer. if not, then your argument doesn't work. unless your got evidence to go against everything science says about the effects of alcohol on the human body.
[/quote]

Well, as a medical professional with a degree in science, I am pretty well versed in the process of how alcohol affects a body. Your argument is incorrect. You are making blanket statements which do not take into account a person's genetic predispositions, height, weight, kidney and liver function, and rate of metabolism. All these determine the way a person processes alcohol and how they are affected by it. No two individuals respond the same way to alcohol.

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1271911355' post='2097813']
leaving someone completel functional is a false statement. it leaves a person THINKING they are completely functional. there is a big difference. also a beer's affect is not universal. a beer's effect is different depending upon how big or small a person is, when they last ate, how much sleep they had, if they are a man or women, if they are young or old and so on. so there is no universal rule on how alcohol affects a person.

the simple fact is, even one single beer alters a person's brain chemistry and not in a good way. i am not for any substance or drug unless prescribed by a docotor that alters one's mind. why should we be for a substance that alters people minds? it makes no sense. it only makes sense if you like said substance. its the same as people who say legalize pot or meth or lsd. they say all those can be done in moderation just like people claim about alcohol.
[/quote]

Pretty much same argument as above, with at least the stipulation that alcohol affects people differently. That's a positive step.

As far as alcohol altering a person's brain chemistry, it does so in a manner much the same as most antidepressant medications, by preventing the reuptake of certain neurotransmitters and by slowing the function of the central nervous system, decreasing excitability.

Then you said this:

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1271912882' post='2097826']
by your logic, meth realted crimes are only as bad as they are now because its illegal. if meth was made legal, then the crimes would decrease.
[/quote]

To which I replied:

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='22 April 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1271914015' post='2097841']
While I am not the advocate of the use of a substance as heinous as methamphetamine, the position you stated is correct. Legalization of any item or substance, which has a high public demand attached to it, decreases crime related to the illicit means of obtaining that item or substance.

Again, I emphasize: I AM NOT ADVOCATING MAKING METH (OR ANY DRUG) LEGAL. I am simply making a point. It is a logical fallacy to say that simply outlawing something makes crimes related to that thing diminish. The war on drugs is unsuccessful for that very reason...the drugs are illegal, but there is a high demand. Therefore, those who are willing to accept the risks associated with the drug trade are in a position to make large sums of money off those substances. However, their actions are illegal.

Let's take away the inherent bias associated with drugs and substitute another item into the equation. Let's say books that promote sexual promiscuity are outlawed. Now, there is an inherent personal danger in promiscuity. On this we are agreed. Someone could be killed as a result of sexually promiscuous choices (i.e. disease). However, there is a large public demand for sex and for those books related to the topic. People who want those items will find a way to get them. When they are no longer legal, then they find illegal means. Crime increases.

In the case of drugs, our culture is saturated with gang warfare, gun violence, drug overdoses, and all manner of mayhem that is related SPECIFICALLY to the fact that drugs are illegal. That doesn't make drugs good. That makes the laws and the way they are enforced poor and ineffectual.

I think that if some drugs were regulated then the crime underworld that has developed to run the drug trade would be destroyed. There is no profit to be made on trafficking legal goods.

Don't try to make this as a pro-drug argument. However, strictly on the merits of the argument, legalizing some drugs would, in fact, decrease crime.
[/quote]

Next up:

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1271913170' post='2097830']
common sense and alcohol don't work together. alcohol causes common sense to decrease, yet let's the person think they still have thier common sense.

fact is, at the end of the day, alcohol is a mind altering substance. it impairs a person. i believe anything that is a mind altering substance, unless prescribed by a doctor should be illegal. alcohol has negative effects on a person's mind and that's a fact. how much it alters a person is dependent on numerous things and the last person who should be saying how altered alcohol makes a person is the person who is actively drinking alcohol at that moment since their mind is being altered and their decisions are impaired according to the facts.
[/quote]

Dangerous ground to start equating laws with assessment of common sense.
Next up:

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1271913269' post='2097832']
meth crimes are bad because its a mind altering attictive substance that causes people to act out of the norm while on the drug. the meth crime rate has absolutly nothing to do with it being illegal. the crime rate is there because of the drug, not because of the law.
[/quote]

There is little in common when making an argument about methamphetamine and alcohol. Meth is a nervous system stimulant that causes rage and aggression. Alcohol is a nervous system depressant which causes lethargy. Not a very good comparison in terms of your argument.

[Marie-Therese]

Post 4:

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1271913653' post='2097837']
i am saying that anytime a person takes a mind altering substance it reduces their ability to make responsible, moral choices. its simple facts. alcohol alters your mind. when your mind is altered in any way it effects your decison making.

i can't comment on near occasion to sin because i don't like that statement because someone could turn anything and everything into a near occasion to sin. although that's an entirly different debate.

cchoosing to stop drinking after you've had a few drinks does not suddenly make your mind not impaired. fact is, alcohol is a MIND ALTERING substnace when used even as little as one beer. it alters people's minds. it impairs their minds. anything that impairs a person is not good for them.
[/quote]

What exactly is your argument here? That any degree of mental impairment is inherently bad? I think that is a pretty thin argument, since you've established that the medicinal prescription of mind altering substances is good. Here is what I was getting at previously. What is your position? You are trying to ride the fence here, and you can't.


[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 01:30 AM' timestamp='1271914222' post='2097844']
after a few drinks means your impaired. you can say what you want and think what ou want but science backs me up on this. a few drinks makes a person impaired. i understand you like alcohol and is evident on these boards, when people like something or think a certain way, they make every excuse under the sun about why its ok and why its not bad. fact is, alcohol impairs a person's mind. science proves this undeniablly. unless you got some evidence to go against everything science has shown, then you argument fails. your mind is altered after a few drinks. sure, not as altered as a person who drinks 50 beers, but altered none the less. something that alters one's mind is never good for them. something is not good for a person when it alters their mind, their reflexes, their inhibitions, thier decsion making and so on. unless ou got some evidence to back up your claim.
[/quote]

What does the degree of impairment in proportion to alcohol consumption have to do with whether or not it should be legal? This is a bit of a straw man. Hence my reply:

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='22 April 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1271914548' post='2097847']
So your position is that anything "mind-altering" is bad? Pain killers? Antidepressants? Cough syrup? All these can have mind-altering effects and yet they are good. They are prescribed by doctors, right?

What about people who become addicted to those substances which are legally prescribed for a legitimate condition? Does that mean that all those substances should be prohibited too?
[/quote]


[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1271954487' post='2098058']
well obviously you ignored my numerous posts with this question addressed in it, so i will say it again. i am ok with mind altering substances if used as medication/prescribed by a doctor.

next time, please take the time to read my numerous posts which explain this very point. thank you.
[/quote]

As for your "numerous posts" on the topic of prescribed substances, you mentioned it prior to this a grand total of ONE time. The voluminous exegesis you think you've worked up on this topic is just not there. So I replied:

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='22 April 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1271995190' post='2098384']
I actually didn't "ignore your numerous posts" on the topic. I read ALL your posts. Your problem is that there is no coherent, consistent argument being made. First drugs are OK from a doctor, next any thing that alters the mind is bad and should be illegal. Sorry, door doesn't swing both ways there, champ. If you think mind altering substances should be illegal, then say so. I obviously included the proviso that there are plenty of documented cases of properly prescribed substances, prescribed for legitimate conditions, being abused. Does this point then prove your argument that mind altering substances are evil and should be outlawed, or is it that you must accept that with certain substances come the potential for abuses of a kind?

And, you completely ignored the lengthy post I made on your argument about the illegality of a substance leading to decreased crime. If you feel strongly about a subject, that's fine. However, in the meantime, while you're picketing your local liquor store, I offer a suggestion that you should consider a more charitable tone in your responses. Your opinion is fine and good; your insinuations about the character of others here (such as that backhanded swing at Nihil Obstat about how it was obvious what a liking he had to drinking) are uncalled for. I'd rather be in the company of a drunkard than a self-righteous ideologue any day--at least the drunkard KNOWS they are drunk.
[/quote]

And you came back with this sparkling gem of courtesy:

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1271999131' post='2098406']
the door doesn't swing both ways... actually yes it does. all pain meds alter a person mentally, all psych meds do to. your obviously reaching here and just trying to maker your point and grasping for straws. unless you honestly believe medication for MEDICAL purposes aqre the same as someone sitting at home drinking a beer. i never said they are the same. in fact i said just the opposite. so are you going to continue to put words in my mouth?

hey, the same can be said for people on here towards me and back handed comments. so before you go after the one person who disagree's with your opinion, how about go after everyone equally. is that to much to act? now who's being self rightous now?
[/quote]

What to say about that? This was my reply.

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='23 April 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1272001191' post='2098411']
Nothing in my reply to you was self-righteous. My response was that your comments were uncharitable and that your argument lacked cogency and consistency. That's not self-righteous, that is a statement of opinion. I am perfectly able to disagree with civility and I believe that I can produce numerous persons on PM who can attest to this. If others have been uncharitable to you, take it up with them. I'm not on that list.

Your argument, again, is lacking consistency. What is the purpose for someone drinking a beer? You assume all people drink for pleasure alone. More often than not, drinking alcohol is a form of self-medication. What about the person with mental illness who suffers from depression, yet has no health insurance? Drinking might well be a way that person copes with suffering. How about people with undiagnosed chronic pain? Again, alcohol (or some illegal drugs) can be used as a treatment for those people.

You make the logical fallacy of lumping all users of alcohol and/or drugs into the category of your random frat kid binge drinking themselves into a stupor on a Friday night. That is a poor logical step to take. People use alcohol and drugs for a variety of reasons, some of them for the exact same reasons that other people take medications that have been prescribed for them. Is a cancer patient smoking marijuana to relieve symptoms, because the drugs they need are too expensive for them to afford, morally wrong? According to you, yes. How about if that was, instead, a person suffering from depression who drinks a glass of wine with dinner to make them feel more relaxed? Is that morally wrong as well? Because, if I may refresh you, this is, in fact, what you said:



Illegal for everyone. You said it, not me. My argument was simply a refutation of your blanket statement. You can backtrack and say, oh, but I didn't mean this or that. Yet, that is, in fact, what you said. Either make a clear and thoughtfully phrased statement which clarifies that position, or admit that your initial statement was in error. And you still have yet to address my post on the incongruity of the assessment you made about the criminalization of an activity or substance leading to a decreased crime rate.

I haven't put words in your mouth. The words in your mouth simply did not make consistent sense. It is not a slight against you as a person to dispute your argument. I am sorry if you take it that way.
[/quote]

[Marie-Therese]

Post 5:

Then we go back to the exact same argument, different post.

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1271954653' post='2098059']
i am stating anything that alters one's mind is not a good thing. even one beer alters someone's mental status. sure, not to the degree of say 20 beers, but it still alters a person's mind. sorry, but when you alter a person's mind and it effects it negatively like i posted above, its not a good thing.
[/quote]

Again, your argument is that if something alters the mind then it is bad. Never, at any point in your posts, have you described what aspects of having your mind altered are, in fact, bad. Tylenol alters my mind because it affects my nocioceptors (the part of the brain that receives pain signals). Obviously that is not a bad thing. So your continued ranting about mind altering doesn't really spell out what exactly is bad.

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1271954999' post='2098064']
you prove my point right here. you say you can have up to five beers and still be functioning at a reliable higher level. this is what happens when people drink. they always think they are less impaired then they actually are. science backs up my claims, unless you have some some other evidence we are not aware of.

making something legal, a drug would make more crime. simple as this, many illlegal drugs are not used by the general population because it is illegal. by makinging it legal your making it avaliable to the general population. crime increases because of the drugs reaction on the human body. its simple math. the less people which have access to a mind altering drug, the less crimes that will be comittied. the more access someone has to it, the more crimes comitted.

your arguement is the same agruement people make when they want to make something legal. they say it would be cause less crime and be better regulated if it was legal. its the same argument for people who want legalized prostituion, legalized drugs, legalized assisted suicide and so on. exposing something to the general public would increase the crime rate 100 fold.
[/quote]

This is a sweeping generalization, and wrong, for the reasons I've stated multiple times already. Your belief in criminalization decreasing crime, while well-intentioned, is just dead wrong.

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1271999396' post='2098408']
except that is not the only effects of one drink. drinking effects more than just one thing. you may think it only effects one thing and slightly at that, but science shows that drinking affects many things, not just a single thing.

irresponsible to take mind altering substances? i could agree with that.

evil? i don't believe an inanimate object can be evil. i believe people can be evil, but not something that is inanimate.
[/quote]


[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1271999565' post='2098409']
i don't believe they are inherently evil or good but that's because i don't believe things can be evil or good. i think people can be evil or good. i think inanimate things without a soul is just a thing.
[/quote]

More of the same old stuff. Impairment is bad. We got it by now. This inanimate good v. evil bit really has nothing to do with the topic, honestly. No one is claiming that alcohol has a soul, and it is evil.