Jump to content

Why is alcohol legal ?


KickMePlease
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's the only kind of opinion I have.

Yes it is, but obviously it isn't going to change a thing re the legality of alcohol, and the general illegal, nature of other mind altering, dangerous crutch like nature of dependant drugs. I remain relatively  safe and content in such a society.

8 hours ago, KickMePlease said:

thank you all for the answers, I didn't think so many people would answer

It's at best a controversial topic, that sadly many look at politically rather then realistically and the reason why so many societies are so split on such matters. The facts are, irrespective of the dangers of alcohol, it is now a social necessity, and would literally create riots if attempts to ban it by pretentious do gooders were to eventuate. 

The best we can do, and should do, is educate our young on those dangers, of drinking to excess, and as someone did mention, make it part and parcel of our education system.

In recognising those facts, it is illogical to then want to legalise other dangerous drugs and give our youngsters more reason to experiment, and perhaps become addicted to those drugs, and create even more problems for society.

In essence  and imo of course, this silly move by some, is an example of a type of balancing act between far left and far right politics. I remain realistic imo, in that view, despite the hoarde of red negs, and will never let such morally incorrect extremes alter what I see as morally correct.

I actually pity and have some sympathy for those that have or do see the need to dabble in such illegalities, and fully support any rehabilitation processes to change them, at least before punishment and jail. I also fully support a decriminalisation of perhaps one or two of the milder types of drugs, but certainly not and never legalisation.

On 5/5/2022 at 10:37 PM, dimreepr said:

Why is alcohol legal?

Because the poor can make it anyway, and the rich has figured out how to make money out of it, despite poverty; much like gambling

I'm neither rich nor poor, and have at one time made my own beer. How many, or what proportionate of the rich are making money out of it? and what has that to do with poverty and gambling? What do you do to help with poverty in your society? 

ps: I also have a punt every now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, iNow said:

You two remind me of a married couple, and not a loving one. 

*shrug*  😏 If we were the only two people living on Earth, I think I would murder him and knock about by myself! 😆😂 Just Joking!!!

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/11/10412/bad-is-never-good-until-worse-happens-quote-1.jpg

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I actually pity and have some sympathy for those that have or do see the need to dabble in such illegalities

You can stick your pity in your bum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You can stick your pity in your bum.

That's OK, other's probably more deserving, may appreciate it.

I actually pity and have some sympathy for those that have or do see the need to dabble in such illegalities, and fully support any rehabilitation processes to change them, at least before punishment and jail. I also fully support a decriminalisation of perhaps one or two of the milder types of drugs, but certainly not and never legalisation.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish we could have better arguments, for and against, instead of just down-voting your disagreement.
Please tell us why, else this is not a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

I wish we could have better arguments, for and against, instead of just down-voting your disagreement.
Please tell us why, else this is not a discussion.

The number of negative votes with no discussion is minuscule, and typically self-evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

I wish we could have better arguments, for and against, instead of just down-voting your disagreement.
Please tell us why, else this is not a discussion.

Totally agree. I believe sometimes when valid points are made, which conflict with others political agenda, then malice raises its ugly head.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The number of negative votes with no discussion is minuscule, and typically self-evident.

The numbers of negative votes directed in one direction, from one source I suggest  also gives rise to  conflicting agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, beecee said:

The numbers of negative votes directed in one direction, from one source I suggest  also gives rise to  conflicting agendas.

What is the one source?

I ask because I neg repped you when you pitied me. That means there are at least two sources.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is the one source?

I ask because I neg repped you when you pitied me. That means there are at least two sources.

I'm really not that intereted in what you neg rep old friend, or any of the other hoardes of neg reps I have received in this thread. My position stands firm, and what makes it pleasing, is that this position will stand firm in my society, irrespective of who wins in our upcoming elections in a couple of weeks. 

If that position is not clear, let me state it again.

" My stance is that alcohol has been and always will be a social necessity and as much a part of society as is eating. The dangers etc of excess alcohol intake should be part and parcel of the primary education system, and taught to our young. Legalising more potentially dangerous drugs that are at present illegal, for free and easy obtainability and use, is imo couter-productive and dangerous. "

 

If you or anyone else sees the need to smoke, snort, inject or whatever it is that tickles your fancy is your business and no skin off my nose. Thankfully, at least in my society, my stance as above, will be maintained. Feel free to neg rep if you wish.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Feel free to neg rep if you wish.

Don't play the martyr. I didn't neg rep you because you want beer to be legal and hard drugs to be illegal.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

If that position is not clear, let me state it again.

 

Not necessary to keep quoting yourself. We all saw it the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm really not that intereted in what you neg rep old friend, or any of the other hoardes of neg reps I have received in this thread. My position stands firm, and what makes it pleasing, is that this position will stand firm in my society, irrespective of who wins in our upcoming elections in a couple of weeks. 

If that position is not clear, let me state it again.

" My stance is that alcohol has been and always will be a social necessity and as much a part of society as is eating. The dangers etc of excess alcohol intake should be part and parcel of the primary education system, and taught to our young. Legalising more potentially dangerous drugs that are at present illegal, for free and easy obtainability and use, is imo couter-productive and dangerous. "

 

If you or anyone else sees the need to smoke, snort, inject or whatever it is that tickles your fancy is your business and no skin off my nose. Thankfully, at least in my society, my stance as above, will be maintained. Feel free to neg rep if you wish.

 

You are talking from ignorance Around 40% of all violent crimes are alcohol related in the UK and Oz. Tell me alcohol's not dangerous to social harmony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are talking from ignorance Around 40% of all violent crimes are alcohol related in the UK and Oz. Tell me alcohol's not dangerous to social harmony.

Meanwhile, even before legalization cannabis-related crimes were mostly related to possession and import. After legalization obviously those rates dropped. While impaired driving under drug but no alcohol influence increased a bit, it is still only 8% of the rate of alcohol-related impaired driving. And in contrast to alcohol there are no robust associations with violence or other crimes connected to cannabis. I.e. if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol. This is likely also going to be the case for things like psilocybin.

It is clear that the case for legalizing only alcohol is not (entirely) based on risk, public health or similar assessments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Meanwhile, even before legalization cannabis-related crimes were mostly related to possession and import. After legalization obviously those rates dropped. While impaired driving under drug but no alcohol influence increased a bit, it is still only 8% of the rate of alcohol-related impaired driving. And in contrast to alcohol there are no robust associations with violence or other crimes connected to cannabis. I.e. if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol. This is likely also going to be the case for things like psilocybin.

It is clear that the case for legalizing only alcohol is not (entirely) based on risk, public health or similar assessments.

I spent the middle third of my 60 years on mostly cannabis and amphetamines. The only time I've had black eyes or social strife is on excess alcohol. The saddest people I've ever seen are alcoholics by a wide margin, it knocks all the other drugs into the second division for the mess it causes. AFAIK one cannot safely withdraw from a full-on alcohol addiction without medical assistance... the physical addiction is real.... as I'm sure you know. Not sure about meth, but all the others are about a two week withdrawal for the physical side of the addiction. Obviously, the psychological side takes longer to overcome, but one is passed the physical aspect of the addiction after that time. Not so with barbiturates and alcohol. I've had many conversations with a UK Social Services substance misuse team, whose care I was under for a couple of years under a voluntary admission. Their sources are based on evidence.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not compare like with like ?

You are comparing alcoholics, who are abusers /addicts of alcohol, to social users of Cannabis. Only a minority of alcohol users become dependent, and have/cause problems; but there are an awful lot of users.
Why not compare alcoholics to the perma-stoned users of cannabis ?

The fact that a lot of alcohol users are not addicts/abusers, but simply have one or two drinks a day, is skewed by how you choose to define 'alcoholic'.

I am reminded of going to my yearly medical, and being asked by the doctor how many drinks I'd have per week.
To which I replied between 7 and 14.
He then said that if I need a drink or two every day, I'm considered an alcoholic.
To which I replied that I just drank on Saturday nights.

And I won't even get into abusers of the 'harder; drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why not compare like with like ?

You are comparing alcoholics, who are abusers /addicts of alcohol, to social users of Cannabis. Only a minority of alcohol users become dependent, and have/cause problems; but there are an awful lot of users.
Why not compare alcoholics to the perma-stoned users of cannabis ?

The fact that a lot of alcohol users are not addicts/abusers, but simply have one or two drinks a day, is skewed by how you choose to define 'alcoholic'.

I am reminded of going to my yearly medical, and being asked by the doctor how many drinks I'd have per week.
To which I replied between 7 and 14.
He then said that if I need a drink or two every day, I'm considered an alcoholic.
To which I replied that I just drank on Saturday nights.

And I won't even get into abusers of the 'harder; drugs.

That minority of alcohol users cause 40% of violent incidents. That's a high impact rate. A perma-stoned smoker will be relatively immobile. In fact a casual smoker is more likely to have a fight because they are more alert. than one who is completely intoxicated.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor does one need to be physically dependent in order to get drunk once in a while, even if he only consumes his 7-14 ration on Saturday night, and cause a multi-vehicle accident, or beat up his family, or get involved in an incident - say the celebration of a football victory - that leads to serious trouble. No, we don't all; most of us are reasonably restrained, some have simply been lucky.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nor does one need to be physically dependent in order to get drunk once in a while, even if he only consumes his 7-14 ration on Saturday night, and cause a multi-vehicle accident, or beat up his family, or get involved in an incident - say the celebration of a football victory - that leads to serious trouble. No, we don't all; most of us are reasonably restrained, some have simply been lucky.     

This is true, casual or chronic alcohol use can have severe negative consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I won't even get into abusers of the 'harder; drugs.

I see where that's not so easy. Do we have any statistics on the breakdown of hard-drug related offenses? How many are for possession and trafficking (directly because the drug is illegal, for which there are no counterparts for legal alcohol). How many for property crimes in order to get money to acquire the drug on which the user is dependent? (Indirectly because the drug is illegal - while alcoholics who hold up liquor stores are not counted as junkies) . How many are actions taken under the influence of a hard drug?

Comparisons are not always straightforward: all we have is statistics compiled under the same system of legal disparity, by people with the same bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I see where that's not so easy. Do we have any statistics on the breakdown of hard-drug related offenses? How many are for possession and trafficking (directly because the drug is illegal, for which there are no counterparts for legal alcohol). How many for property crimes in order to get money to acquire the drug on which the user is dependent? (Indirectly because the drug is illegal - while alcoholics who hold up liquor stores are not counted as junkies) . How many are actions taken under the influence of a hard drug?

Comparisons are not always straightforward: all we have is statistics compiled under the same system of legal disparity, by people with the same bias.

Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs. Being legal instils a false sense of toxicological safety and personal virtue relative to illicit drugs...

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Don't play the martyr. I didn't neg rep you because you want beer to be legal and hard drugs to be illegal.

I'm not playing anything....I'm simply stating the fact of a hoarde of neg reps from others including yourself, which imo  sort of sadly detracts from the validity and discussions on opinions on this site. And of course, it has made no difference or detracted from any of the morals relating to my opinion. In reality I'n not really interested with any political agenda, and that appears to be the only aspect people taking part in this thread are pushing...that and of course the line one would expect those that do or have partaken in illegal drugs to take, in a kind of self defence case mechanism.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not necessary to keep quoting yourself. We all saw it the first time.

When others particularly Peterson last night, take sentences out of whole comments for facetious comments on, then it certainly is necessary to remind them of that potential dishonesty. 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You are talking from ignorance Around 40% of all violent crimes are alcohol related in the UK and Oz. Tell me alcohol's not dangerous to social harmony.

No I am not. I have admitted many times so far of the dangers of alcohol, and even agreed to a suggestion from CharonY re education in schools re those dangers and the case for drinking responsibly and in moderation. But that does not invalidate what would happen if some pretentious move was made to ban it. It wouldn't work, because it is part and parcel of society and who we are.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol.

 Whether that is factual or otherwise, it will never happen for the reasons stated.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I spent the middle third of my 60 years on mostly cannabis and amphetamines. The only time I've had black eyes or social strife is on excess alcohol. The saddest people I've ever seen are alcoholics by a wide margin, it knocks all the other drugs into the second division for the mess it causesNot so with barbiturates and alcohol. I've had many conversations with a UK Social Services substance misuse team, whose care I was under for a couple of years under a voluntary admission. Their sources are based on evidence.

Considering the amount of people who drink alcohol and the amount of people who take illegal drugs, I find that comparison invalid. 

I have never been in any social strife through alcohol, and the vast majority of those that consume alcohol would be in the same boat.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Why not compare like with like ?

You are comparing alcoholics, who are abusers /addicts of alcohol, to social users of Cannabis. Only a minority of alcohol users become dependent, and have/cause problems; but there are an awful lot of users.
Why not compare alcoholics to the perma-stoned users of cannabis ?

The fact that a lot of alcohol users are not addicts/abusers, but simply have one or two drinks a day, is skewed by how you choose to define 'alcoholic'.

I am reminded of going to my yearly medical, and being asked by the doctor how many drinks I'd have per week.
To which I replied between 7 and 14.
He then said that if I need a drink or two every day, I'm considered an alcoholic.
To which I replied that I just drank on Saturday nights.

And I won't even get into abusers of the 'harder; drugs.

Nice to see a wise comment, and what I was trying to say previously before I saw your post. ps: I gave you a positive green you lucky devil you! 😜

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

 In fact a casual smoker is more likely to have a fight because they are more alert. than one who is completely intoxicated.

And how about all those irresponsible pot smokers or other drug takers that decide to drive? Not worried about their lives, (that's their business) but they also put other lives at risk. Your comparison is invalid, again.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Nor does one need to be physically dependent in order to get drunk once in a while, even if he only consumes his 7-14 ration on Saturday night, and cause a multi-vehicle accident, or beat up his family, or get involved in an incident - say the celebration of a football victory - that leads to serious trouble. No, we don't all; most of us are reasonably restrained, some have simply been lucky.     

Same situation applies to anyone abusing all the illegal drugs. And many examples can be pulled out to support that.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I see where that's not so easy. Do we have any statistics on the breakdown of hard-drug related offenses? How many are for possession and trafficking (directly because the drug is illegal, for which there are no counterparts for legal alcohol). How many for property crimes in order to get money to acquire the drug on which the user is dependent? (Indirectly because the drug is illegal

Try reading a newspaper, or listening to a news service on the accounts near every night, or the results/decisions of court cases. No need for statistics.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 while alcoholics who hold up liquor stores are not counted as junkies) . How many are actions taken under the influence of a hard drug?

Comparisons are not always straightforward: all we have is statistics compiled under the same system of legal disparity, by people with the same bias.

How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores? any number you can come up with? How do you know that all that hold up liquor stors are alcoholics? How do you know someone doesn't hold up a liquor store just to resell the alcohol? You don't of course, so another invalid comparison.

49 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs. Being legal instils a false sense of toxicological safety and personal virtue relative to illicit drugs...

"Substance abuse is the medical term used to describe a pattern of using a substance (drug) that causes significant problems or distress. This may be missing work or school, using the substance in dangerous situations, such as driving a car." WIKI

Unlike alcohol abuse, alcoholism (alcohol dependency) is considered a chronic mental and physical disease that can impact all areas of a person's life. Alcohol abuse, on the other hand, can refer to acute instances of abusing alcohol.WIKI

A drug abuser increases his/her drug use in multiples of 2 over time. Results: Emotional change: The drug-dependent person experiences mood swings related to drug use. Gradually there is a personality change and all activity and thoughts revolve around drugs. Judgment and insight are also impaired.WIKI:

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws are not enacted on the basis of scientific study, or measured, well-reasoned analysis. laws are enacted on the basis of power distribution, expediency, patronage, political pressure, prejudice, custom, fad and panic. They're sometimes altered and modified by sober afterthoughts and to correct unforeseen negative effects... ad hoc, piecemeal, half-assedly, hoping enough tinkering will finally satisfy everyone - well, everyone who matters.    

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores?

Nobody knows. That was my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

  Nobody knows. That was my point.

Of course we know. And that is not the point. Many who have held up alcohol stores are not alcoholics, as the results in court cases shows. the whole paragraph from the sentence you commented on....How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores? any number you can come up with? How do you know that all that hold up liquor stors are alcoholics? How do you know someone doesn't hold up a liquor store just to resell the alcohol? You don't of course, so another invalid comparison.

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Laws are not enacted on the basis of scientific study, or measured, well-reasoned analysis. laws are enacted on the basis of power distribution, expediency, patronage, political pressure, prejudice, custom, fad and panic. They're sometimes altered and modified by sober afterthoughts and to correct unforeseen negative effects... ad hoc, piecemeal, half-assedly, hoping enough tinkering will finally satisfy everyone - well, everyone who matters.   

Laws are inacted on and in the democratic system by the people we elect to enact them. Some are good laws, some are bad. We show our contentment or otherwise by throwing those that made the laws out of office or re-electing them. Generally nothing to do with power distribution ( that is in societies hands in a demcratic society) not whether one is rich, poor or indifferent. Those reasons are philsophical furphies, pushed by political agendas.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Why not compare alcoholics to the perma-stoned users of cannabis ?

 

In addition to what StringJunky said, health trajectories are worse for alcohol addicts compared to cannabis addicts. While neither is great, the latter is less likely to cause death or other severe health effects. Also alcoholics are already in the more extreme area of substance harm. Regular heavy drinking, even without the hall marks of alcohol addiction has been associated with significant more lives lost than equivalent cannabis use. In Canada for males the alcohol-attributable fraction of deaths is around 7, while prevalence of alcohol use disorder or alcohol dependency is lower in Canada (8 vs 13.9 and 4.1 vs 7.7, respectively). 

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Only a minority of alcohol users become dependent, and have/cause problems; but there are an awful lot of users.

You could make the argument then that with cannabis becoming more common you'll like also to have fewer folks having a cannabis use disorder. After all, limited social use is likely going to dilute the severe cases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You could make the argument then that with cannabis becoming more common you'll like also to have fewer folks having a cannabis use disorder. After all, limited social use is likely going to dilute the severe cases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02530-7

Weighing the dangers of cannabis

extract:

As interest builds in the potential health benefits from the plant, accumulating evidence confirms that taking the drug also carries risks.

Immediate harms

Along with countries including Canada and Uruguay, 33 US states have legalized cannabis for medical use. Eleven also allow recreational use. And evidence is accumulating to support the use of specific cannabis compounds, especially cannabidiol (CBD), for a variety of health conditions, including seizures and inflammation2.

But a look at what happens when the use of cannabis becomes more widespread suggests that the drug can also have downsides, including acute injuries and illnesses. In 2000, Colorado legalized medical marijuana. Further policy changes in 2009 made the substance easier to get hold of, and between 2008 and 2014, licences for medical marijuana in the state increased from less than 5,000 to more than 100,000. In 2012, the state also legalized recreational use, and shops began selling cannabis products in 2014.

As cannabis has lost its stigma in Colorado, Monte’s research shows that the need for health care for cannabis-related reasons has risen3. Between 2012 and 2014, cannabis-related visits to emergency departments at a group of Colorado hospitals increased by around 40%, from 824 per 100,000 visits to 1,146 per 100,000. Many of those visits were related to mental illnesses, which were diagnosed five times more frequently in people who had used cannabis than in those who hadn’t.

Colorado hospitals have also seen a growing number of cases of marijuana use leading to cyclic vomiting syndrome, a condition characterized by vomiting and severe abdominal pain. Occurrences of this condition doubled at two Denver hospitals after the liberalization of medical cannabis2. Burns are another risk. In a 2015 analysis4, Monte’s group found that the University of Colorado burns centre admitted 29 people for marijuana-related burns between 2009 and 2014, compared with no burns cases before the policy changed. Most were incurred during the process of extracting the plant’s main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), for making butane hash oil.

Cannabis is also causing more of other types of accident than it used to. From 2009 to 2015, Children’s Hospital of Colorado in Aurora saw 81 children under 10 years of age who had been accidentally poisoned by cannabis, and the state’s poison-control centre dealt with 163 cases of children in the same age group, with a mean age of about 2. The rate of marijuana-related visits to the children’s hospital nearly doubled from 1.2 per 100,000 people two years before legalization to 2.3 per 100,000 two years after legalization5. The number of cases at the poison-control centre increased by 34% per year during the study period, far outpacing a 19% annual increase in the rest of the country.

Studies with driving simulators suggest that cannabis also raises the risk of car accidents6, although those data are harder to quantify because cannabis lingers in the bloodstream, and drivers in collisions might have more than one drug in their system.

Adverse outcomes do not seem to be abating in the state, even after years of legalization. Between 2012 and 2016 (the latest data available), there were nearly 10,000 cannabis-related visits to the University of Colorado Health Emergency Department7. Reasons included psychiatric, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms. Edible products accounted for about 10% of visits, even though, in 2016, they made up just 0.3% of THC sales in the state.

“There are risks, absolutely,” Monte says. “And we need to be open and transparent about what those risks are with patients.”

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

No I hav't read the whole paper as yet, as I am on the way out for dinner, and yes a few beers....taxi there and back.

ps:Before anyone takes me out of context again, yes I fully concur with the use of cannibi and any other drug for medical reasons, as certified by professional health departments.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.