Jesus Drank Grape Juice!

[Sojourner]

It seems a little NIMBY-ish to take a stance like this. "I don't care about the harm as long as it's not in MY community." That feels inconsistent. If it's bad for your community, then what justification could you have for imposing it on other communities?

And just as there was impetus to prohibit alcohol, there was also impetus to allow it. In both cases there were Constitutional amendments, and the more recent amendment was to allow alcohol so that seems to have had the most compelling reasons for passage.

And we do allow drug use in moderation. It's called "prescriptions." I'm all for morphine when used in the proper setting, but in its street form (heroin) it's a problem. Many drugs used on the street also have legitimate medical uses. I see no problem with saying that we establish boundaries for moderate use of certain drugs through regulation, just as we do with alcohol. The level of regulation is ostensibly tailored to the potency of the drug.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351128' date='Aug 6 2007, 12:31 PM']It seems a little NIMBY-ish to take a stance like this. "I don't care about the harm as long as it's not in MY community." That feels inconsistent. If it's bad for your community, then what justification could you have for imposing it on other communities?

And just as there was impetus to prohibit alcohol, there was also impetus to allow it. In both cases there were Constitutional amendments, and the more recent amendment was to allow alcohol so that seems to have had the most compelling reasons for passage.

And we do allow drug use in moderation. It's called "prescriptions." I'm all for morphine when used in the proper setting, but in its street form (heroin) it's a problem. Many drugs used on the street also have legitimate medical uses. I see no problem with saying that we establish boundaries for moderate use of certain drugs through regulation, just as we do with alcohol. The level of regulation is ostensibly tailored to the potency of the drug.[/quote]
The potential harm you and I have pointed out is the symptom of the presence of alcohol in a community. Again, did I advocate prohibition? (Granted, if prohibition was in place, I would not lose sleep. Don't worry. I'm sure the Church was still having mass during the prohibition of the 20th century.) It seems I accepted a partially wet community. Partially wet means the presence of alcohol. Partially wet accepts the presence while controlling the accessibility. This can change from one city to the next.

Who said I was imposing anything on other communities? I think locally first and move up from there as necessary. I speak for MY community because I don't know YOUR community. Although, with more stories like [url="http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/192918.html"]this[/url], I can be easily convinced to bring my opinion to at least the state level.

Why would the fact an amendment exists overturning a previous amendment have more compelling reasons for the one overturning? The people changed their mind. Maybe they felt its purpose had been served. Maybe they felt the enforcement was too difficult, which, if true, is a non-compelling reason. Maybe they felt it was not a constitution worthy issue after all. Maybe they wanted a drink. None of those reasons mean the reasons for the first amendment were less compelling.

Sorry I wasn't specific with my last paragraph. Here it is in a more precise form...
Careful with the last paragraph. Someone with the "recreational" drug legalization crowd might take you up on your reasoning.

Are you suggesting controlling moderation with alcohol through the use of prescriptions? "You are hereby prescribed 1 bottle of whiskey."

[Sojourner]

Sorry ... perhaps I wasn't clear about which parts of your comments I was referring to with my post. I got lazy and didn't bother doing the multi-quote thing.
So in response to
[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351116' date='Aug 6 2007, 11:13 AM']You can bring it in from outside my community and consume it, but you can't sell it. In regards to selling in restaurants, I waffle on that one. People usually control themselves given the price restaurants charge. The amount of alcohol a restaurant is also monitored and cannot exceed a maximum. That is good.[/quote]
I said:
[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351128' date='Aug 6 2007, 11:31 AM']It seems a little NIMBY-ish to take a stance like this. "I don't care about the harm as long as it's not in MY community." That feels inconsistent. If it's bad for your community, then what justification could you have for imposing it on other communities?[/quote]
I'm well aware that you're not advocating prohibition, but if you're open to people bringing alcohol in from outside the community, you must be open to it being sold [i]somewhere[/i], just not in your own community. Someone has to sell it somewhere if it can be brought in, so if it's not an evil imposed on your own community then it's imposed on someone else's community. That's the inconsistency I was pointing out. If selling alcohol (not at a restaurant) is objectively bad for a community -- bad enough that you don't want it sold in your community -- then how can you justify allowing it to be sold anywhere? How can you justify allowing people to bring it in to your community?

Then, in response to
[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351116' date='Aug 6 2007, 11:13 AM']Prohibition actually worked out well if it's measured by its objective, to dry a drunken nation up. (I can provide actual numbers of how well it worked when I get home.) America was a nation of drunkards. It is no surprise the largest proponent of prohibition was women. They are the ones who had to deal with husbands who came home drunk and in many cases were abusive. Think of what would motivate a group of people to not just outlaw alcohol but to amend the Constitution. That's no small feat. There must have some serious motivating factors. (This could start a new thread.)[/quote]
I said:
[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351128' date='Aug 6 2007, 11:31 AM']And just as there was impetus to prohibit alcohol, there was also impetus to allow it. In both cases there were Constitutional amendments, and the more recent amendment was to allow alcohol so that seems to have had the most compelling reasons for passage.[/quote]
You used the fact that there was a Constitutional amendment passed as evidence that there was a serious problem with alcohol that needed to be addressed. And that's probably true. But the prohibition that was put in place caused problems of its own, enough to generate a Constitutional amendment of its own. That's what this comment was directed toward. Not implying that you support prohibition, necessarily, but questioning your use of an amendment being passed as support.

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351199' date='Aug 6 2007, 01:46 PM']The potential harm you and I have pointed out is the symptom of the presence of alcohol in a community. Again, did I advocate prohibition? (Granted, if prohibition was in place, I would not lose sleep. Don't worry. I'm sure the Church was still having mass during the prohibition of the 20th century.) It seems I accepted a partially wet community. Partially wet means the presence of alcohol. Partially wet accepts the presence while controlling the accessibility. This can change from one city to the next.[/quote]
OK, I never said you advocated Prohibition (even though I did question you about that, and although you still seem like you're not that far from it). And I get the concept of "partially wet."

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351199' date='Aug 6 2007, 01:46 PM']Why would the fact an amendment exists overturning a previous amendment have more compelling reasons for the one overturning? The people changed their mind. Maybe they felt its purpose had been served. Maybe they felt the enforcement was too difficult, which, if true, is a non-compelling reason. Maybe they felt it was not a constitution worthy issue after all. Maybe they wanted a drink. None of those reasons mean the reasons for the first amendment were less compelling.[/quote]
Legally, the most recent decision or law is always the most weighty/compelling. The fact that the law was passed, then overturned, means that someone at some point (and in the case of a Constitutional amendment lots of someones) found the anti-Prohibition arguments to be more compelling than those for Prohibition. And it's stayed that way, so obviously the reasons for Prohibition were not compelling enough to stand the test of time.

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351199' date='Aug 6 2007, 01:46 PM']Sorry I wasn't specific with my last paragraph. Here it is in a more precise form...
Careful with the last paragraph. Someone with the "recreational" drug legalization crowd might take you up on your reasoning.

Are you suggesting controlling moderation with alcohol through the use of prescriptions? "You are hereby prescribed 1 bottle of whiskey." [/quote]
I understood your point. And my answer stands.

Our current forms of regulation are a form of "prescription" -- controlled release of a substance to the community. The regulations require that a licensed individual dispense the substance, so really it's in the same category as a prescription, even though obviously prescription drugs are more highly regulated. I'm saying that we do control consumption of alcohol (with an aim tending toward encouraging moderation) through our current regulations.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351430' date='Aug 6 2007, 06:07 PM']I'm well aware that you're not advocating prohibition, but if you're open to people bringing alcohol in from outside the community, you must be open to it being sold [i]somewhere[/i], just not in your own community. Someone has to sell it somewhere if it can be brought in, so if it's not an evil imposed on your own community then it's imposed on someone else's community. That's the inconsistency I was pointing out. If selling alcohol (not at a restaurant) is objectively bad for a community -- bad enough that you don't want it sold in your community -- then how can you justify allowing it to be sold anywhere? How can you justify allowing people to bring it in to your community?[/quote]
Did I say alcohol or the consumption of alcohol was evil? I thought my first post on this made it clear what my position on alcohol was. If I said it was evil, would I be for prohibition, which I already said I'm not?

What I have said is the acceptance of alcohol into a community comes at a price. The price is based on its level of acceptance, dry, partially-wet, wet. It is up to each community to determine if the price is too high or not.

Optimally, the determination is based on socio-economic factors. Sadly, as I have pointed is the case with the city near mine, the "socio" factors are heavily discounted in favor of the economic.

You assume the only way to sell alcohol in a community is over the counter in a store. It can be sold from a warehouse, no walk up service.

Also, when I say alcohol can be brought into my community, that of course hinges on the fact another community decides to sell alcohol. You seem to think I'm saying the other community MUST sell alcohol. They don't have to. In fact, no one HAS to sell alcohol anywhere in America. So please don't imply I'm pushing something I don't like in MY community on YOUR community. YOUR community doesn't have to sell it. Nobody does.

[quote]But the prohibition that was put in place caused problems of its own, enough to generate a Constitutional amendment of its own.[/quote]
That doesn't mean one amendment's arguments were more compelling than the other. The arguments for the overturning amendment could be rooted more in convenience than any compelling argument. (Reference current arguments for ceasing the war on drugs and the legalization of all drugs.)
[quote]Our current forms of regulation are a form of "prescription" -- controlled release of a substance to the community. The regulations require that a licensed individual dispense the substance, so really it's in the same category as a prescription, even though obviously prescription drugs are more highly regulated. I'm saying that we do control consumption of alcohol (with an aim tending toward encouraging moderation) through our current regulations.[/quote]
Aim tending toward encouraging moderation... how so? A statute here and there for restaurants and bars is not to encourage moderation. It's really to protect themselves, not the patron. If I'm an alcoholic in a wet town, I can drink myself to death, literally. Our laws do not encourage moderation. They simply regulate liability.

And don't get me started on gambling in MY community or state!

[Sojourner]

OK, I'm going to cut it down to one point at a time ... it's just getting too unwieldy.

OK, so earlier you said:
[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351199' date='Aug 6 2007, 01:46 PM']The potential harm you and I have pointed out is the symptom of the presence of alcohol in a community.[/quote]
Now, based on this statement I interpreted you as pointing to alcohol as the problem. That, and the fact that you are wanting to keep the non-restaurant sale of alcohol out of your community. The reason I interpreted it in this fashion is that you denoted the harms we'd discussed (drunk driving, domestic violence, etc.) as harms/potential harms, which are the "symptom." This would lead one to believe it is a symptom of a deeper illness, which you note is "the presence of alcohol in a community." This is what I based my interpretation of your position on -- that alcohol's presence in a community (the illness) leads to symptoms (drunk driving, domestic violence).

This seems to be in contradiction to what you say here:
[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351468' date='Aug 6 2007, 06:17 PM']Did I say alcohol or the consumption of alcohol was evil? I thought my first post on this made it clear what my position on alcohol was. If I said it was evil, would I be for prohibition, which I already said I'm not?[/quote]

So ... I'm unclear. These appear to be contradictory statements.

[Sojourner]

(p.s. I hope I'm not being annoying; I really am just hoping for a bit of clarification.)

[Socrates]

[WARNING: HUGE SHOCKER AHEAD!!! - JUST SO NOBODY GETS A HEART ATTACK]
I basically agree with TF on this.

Prohibition is an intrusion of the nanny-state into where it has no place. People can and do respsonsibly enjoy alcohol. In my state, there are VERY harsh penalties for DUI, which help discourage behavior which is a public danger. However, I don't want the state prohibiting me from buying beer just because other people out there can't enjoy it responsibly. (I'm enjoying a Corona Extra as I type).

Of course, I am for the right of cities, counties, etc. to decide what restrictions to place or not place on the sale of alchohol, though I personally wouldn't want to live in a "dry county." (And dry counties are something of a joke anyway, imo. People in the neighboring "wet" counties set up shop on the border and make a comfortable living selling to the "dry" folks.)

And, as noted, the "semi-wet/dry" county advocated by Kamiller does depend on the legal sale of alcohol elsewhere.

National prohibition was an unconstitutional debacle promulgated by prissy prots with a messianic complex. Good riddance to it.

[Dismas]

First of all, much has to be considered about the local culture one is bringing alcohol into.

For instance, I live in the Milwaukee area, which means that we aren't wet, we're soaked. I have pictures of myself at the age of just learning to walk also drinking a shot glass of my grandpa's beer. I had champaign, grasshoppers, and brandy by the age of three. Most family gatherings involve beer, wine and/or booze in moderation. I was raised with a mature respect for the good and bad of alcoholic drinks from youth on. It is a rare day indeed when I let drunkenness sneak up on me, and so I enjoy much more of the good than the bad. I'm even setting up a home-brew operation for personal and social use (I am currently legally allowed to brew up to 200 gallons of beer or wine per year).

I would not, however, recommend my consumption to someone who lived in absence of alcohol in his or her formative years. I simply would not be able to trust even a close friend to be disciplined enough not to get into trouble if he or she is not familiar with strong drink. I've cleaned too much puke out of my old dorm room floor thanks to such foolishness, and I don't drink with more than one amateur at a time nowadays because of it.

Even so, here's a little song to lift our hearts to our glasses:

"Old Noah, he had an ostrich farm, and fowls on the greatest scale;
He ate his egg with a ladle in an egg-cup big as a pail,
And the soup he took was Elephant Soup and the fish he took was Whale;
But they all were small to the cellar he took when he set out to sail;
And Noah, he often said to his wife when he sat down to dine,
'I don't care where the water goes if it doesn't get into the wine.'

"The cataract of the cliff of heaven fell blinding off the brink,
As if it would wash the stars away as suds go down a sink,
The seven heavens came roaring down for the throats of hell to drink,
And Noah, he cocked his eye and said, 'It looks like rain I think,
The water has drowned the Matterhorn as deep as a Mendip mine,
But I don't care where the water goes if it doesn't get into the wine.'

"But Noah he sinned, and we have sinned; on tipsy feet we trod,
Till a great big black teetotaller was sent to us for a rod,
And you can't get wine at a P.S.A. or a chapel or Eisteddfod;
For the Curse of Water has come again because of the wrath of God,
And water is on the Bishop's board and the Higher Thinker's shrine,
But I don't care where the water goes if it doesn't get into the wine."

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351508' date='Aug 6 2007, 08:30 PM']Now, based on this statement I interpreted you as pointing to alcohol as the problem. That, and the fact that you are wanting to keep the non-restaurant sale of alcohol out of your community. The reason I interpreted it in this fashion is that you denoted the harms we'd discussed (drunk driving, domestic violence, etc.) as harms/potential harms, which are the "symptom." This would lead one to believe it is a symptom of a deeper illness, which you note is "the presence of alcohol in a community." This is what I based my interpretation of your position on -- that alcohol's presence in a community (the illness) leads to symptoms (drunk driving, domestic violence).[/quote]
Symptom does not always point to an illness. A symptom is another word for a sign, a sign of X resulting from Y. Or as the dictionary puts it:
noun: anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's existence

My point is the acceptance of alcohol (consumption, trade, etc.), and even other freedoms(!), comes at price to the common good. As someone who grew up in a heavily alcoholic region (Not where I am now.), I witnessed personal lives, families, and communities destroyed. Every time I hear arguments like "If we legalize X, it will cure all our ills." Often, it's not true. It comes with baggage, big, nasty, smelly piles of baggage.

Personally, I have no problem sacrificing the right to drink alcohol if it saves just one person's life. Why? Because I know its absence would save way more than one person's life. Just do a Google search on "[url="http://www.google.com/search?q=alcohol+addiction+treatment&btnG=Search&hl=en"]alcohol addiction treatment[/url]," and you'll find it's a huge business and for good reason. People shrug off the sickness because that's something that happens to celebrities. There are A LOT of people struggling with this. (No, not me.)

[quote name='Socrates' post='1341850' date='Jul 26 2007, 10:26 PM']Teetotalism is an unBiblical tradition of men, started by protestants sometime in the 19th century.

The idea that the wine of the Bible is actually unfermented grapejuice is bunk, and has no basis in the Bible. Especially since there existed at the time no way of storing grapejuice so that it did not ferment and become wine (If an ancient method of pasteurization existed as these people claim, we have absolutely no historical evidence of it whatever).

This is a case of people twisting scripture to conform to their own ideas.[/quote]
Socrates, just as it's wrong for anti-Catholics to stereotype the Inquisition, it's wrong to stereotype Prohibition. Prohibition did not suddenly pop-up. It was a long process not based entirely on moral grounds, i.e. alcohol is evil. It was mostly led by sober women who had enough of drunk men and their immoral behavior. They were tired of the family dysfunction and criminal activity that came with alcohol (price exceeded tolerance.).

[url="http://tinyurl.com/285fw8"]This book[/url] sums what the conditions were like:
[quote]In the 1830s, with whiskey considered legal tender, annual per capita consumption of hard alcohol (i.e., 80-proof whiskey) reached a staggering 7.1 gallons. In some cases, even preachers were "paid" with whiskey! Alcoholism and its related problems--crime, family violence, incompetence in shop and factories, gambling, etc.--became so troublesome between 1820 and 1850 that some began to refer to our country as the "Alcoholic Republic." This prompted politicians such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and later Abraham Lincoln to urge abstinence for the good of family and country.[/quote]
When voluntary methods failed, the government stepped in. By the time the Amendment came around, 21 out of 31 states had already banned alcohol. Did Prohibition work? Consumption was less than a gallon per capita in 1934. It was not until 1975 did we reach pre-prohibition level, 2.6 gallons per capita. Those who supported Prohibition were sincere and had just reasons to take on the mighty task of drafting an amendment and getting it passed(!).

It's true. There will always be someone willing to sell you what you can't buy locally. That's not really a real argument for legalizing X in your community.

Lastly, Prohibition was constitutional.

[Dismas]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351722' date='Aug 6 2007, 11:05 PM']When voluntary methods failed, the government stepped in. By the time the Amendment came around, 21 out of 31 states had already banned alcohol. Did Prohibition work? Consumption was less than a gallon per capita in 1934. It was not until 1975 did we reach pre-prohibition level, 2.6 gallons per capita. Those who supported Prohibition were sincere and had just reasons to take on the mighty task of drafting an amendment and getting it passed(!).[/quote]

Legal alcohol maybe. Once Prohibition was lifted, the taxes placed on alcohol were so high, that the moonshine industry was still running strong.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1351824' date='Aug 7 2007, 01:01 AM']Legal alcohol maybe. Once Prohibition was lifted, the taxes placed on alcohol were so high, that the moonshine industry was still running strong.[/quote]
The following paragraphs in the book cover what happened afterward. In general, demand for alcohol was down. Criminals will always find a way to beat the system. The rightness or wrongness of a law should never be rooted in that fact.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1341850' date='Jul 27 2007, 12:26 PM'](If an ancient method of pasteurization existed as these people claim, we have absolutely no historical evidence of it whatever).[/quote]
Of [i]course[/i] there was an ancient method! It was the Pope and his minions that had all proof burned with all the documents proving faith alone and bible alone are historical!

[Dismas]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1351962' date='Aug 7 2007, 11:12 AM']The following paragraphs in the book cover what happened afterward. In general, demand for alcohol was down. Criminals will always find a way to beat the system. The rightness or wrongness of a law should never be rooted in that fact.[/quote]

I mentioned nothing about rightness or wrongness, merely placed my doubt on the ability for a historian to figure out how much alcohol was actually consumed in America after the Prohibition. While it is quite easy to draw up statistics from legal purchases, the vast post-Prohibition black market on alcohol was not conducive to analysis decades after the fact.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Dismas

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1352647' date='Aug 8 2007, 12:20 AM']While it is quite easy to draw up statistics from legal purchases, the vast post-Prohibition black market on alcohol was not conducive to analysis decades after the fact.[/quote]
You have a link to where I can read about this black market. From what I've read, much of what was black market went legal. Easier to run a business that way.

To those reading...

On another note, [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_el_st_lo/prohibition_vote_3"]this article[/url] proves my point about priorities. What is the #1 argument against the ban? Money. Not any argument proving the wrongness of a ban. It make those for the ban that much more convincing.

[quote]"In Barrow, Alaska, when they legalized alcohol sales, problems went through the roof," Mosher said. "Then, when they banned it again, it improved."[/quote]
Got worse when legalized and then improved when banned? Impossible!