[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 18 KB, 300x300, beer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4146141 No.4146141 [Reply] [Original]

Why is alcohol still legal?

>> No.4146152

because it has a nice effect and boosts social interaction in small doses
any drug can be abused, just because some people overdo it and act like asshats doesnt mean everyone should be banned from having any.

>> No.4146159
File: 14 KB, 502x491, 5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4146159

>>4146152

>> No.4146160

Because, surprisingly, the government took a hint from Prohibition.

>> No.4146162

>>4146152
Then why are pot and cocaine illegal.

>> No.4146175

>>4146162
because the government is inconsistent as fuck, and they shouldnt be illegal.

>> No.4146179

And also because illegalizing it would not stop its use at all and just give a lot of money to organized crime. Since alcohol is extremely easy to make by fermenting many different types of plants, the illegal market for it would be even larger than the illegal market for weed. If it didn't work during the prohibition, there is no good reason why it would work today.

>> No.4146182

>>4146175
which characteristics of borderline personality disorder do you have? have you attempted suicide?

>> No.4146205

Because that last time it was made illegal, organized crime was born.

>> No.4146222

>>4146175
take your pills.

>> No.4146225

>>4146141
Because when we illegalized them before, things got worse.

>> No.4146231

because women secretly loved being raped.

>> No.4146233

it is for the under 21s.

>> No.4146252

>>4146233

Unlucky, Amerifat.
Under 18s here in superior UK.

>> No.4146257

Because the effect of alcohol and its consequences are pretty damn minimal in comparison to other substances, and people are actually capable of being responsible with it.

And before you bring up marijuana, it's been legal in California for a while now, and considerations are being made in other states to legalize it as well (ex.: Oregon).

>> No.4146266

>>4146252
Yeah but our 21-year-olds act like your 17-year-olds.

>> No.4146279

>>4146266
>Implying that's a good thing.
I hope you don't actually think that.

>>4146257
Not happening anytime soon bro.

>> No.4146290
File: 10 KB, 180x180, 277160_183120605091736_1822159_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4146290

>Because the effect of alcohol and its consequences are pretty damn minimal in comparison to other substances

>> No.4146291

>>4146279
No, I did not. I'm saying our kids are more idiotic here.

>> No.4146299

>>4146279
Marijuana is already legal in here the good ol' PDX. The only is that you can't share, sell, or buy it, and you can only smoke on your property. But yes, considerations have been made to make it legal since California did it (probably just to keep up with them).

>> No.4146307

>>4146290
No, Alcohol have pretty big consequences for the society.

>> No.4146312

Let me ask you this: If alcohol was a new product that was introduced today, do you think it would be legal? NOPE

>> No.4146314

>>4146141
I wonder that myself erryday

>> No.4146325

>>4146141
Because making it illegal would be incredible hard.
In practice, it would just make A LOT of people criminals. Take a look at how much problem they ran into when they actually made it illegal, and think about how much worse it would be today.

>> No.4146334

Because it dumbs down society, contributes to a non-progressive way of living, and it's consequences are extremely profitable

>> No.4146344

>>4146307
It does not, anybody who says otherwise is just propagating in a provocateur manner. People are more capable of being responsible with alcohol than something like heroine or meth, nor is it for cultures to be more irresponsible and abusive with some substances than others.

>> No.4146377

Because science doesn't determine law. In fact, it has very little input. Which is a good thing.

>> No.4146372

Jesus Christ can we have a thread that doesn't turn into showering this dumb bitch with attention?

You aren't trolling her, you aren't being funny, she wants attention and that's exactly what you're giving her.

>> No.4146393

>>4146372
>implying we didn't get her to go away.

>> No.4146827

>>4146377
care to explain?

>> No.4148244
File: 25 KB, 450x471, not-this-shit-again.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4148244

>>4146162
> Then why are pot and cocaine illegal.

Why are stoners allowed to access the Internet when high?

Stop thinking so much, eat a Twinkee, go to bed.

>> No.4148263

>>4146231
this man speaks the truth.

>> No.4148274

>>4146141
>Why is alcohol still legal?

All drugs should be legal OP. Personal choices are just that.

If the country took the money we use to arrest pot smokers and put it into drug education and rehabilitation we would be way better off.

>> No.4148289

>>4148274
>The world would be better off legalizing all drugs and using the money that used to go to law enforcement for drug education (and ev. rehabilitation).
Trufax

>> No.4148290

Because it can be a fun and sociable drug to take.

>> No.4148309
File: 460 KB, 1062x1200, medal_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4148309

Alcohol is legal because it saved humans from dying of dysentery.
Pot and other drugs are illegal because they don't have the Distinguished Saved-The-Fucking-Human-Species medal.

>> No.4149291

>>4148309
if pot had originated in europe you can know that it would be legal/socially mandatory.

>> No.4149325

>>4148309
Alcohol is legal because making it illegal would render many good people criminals.

Pot is illegal because making it legal would lead to fewer arrests and possible layoff of law enforcement officers who need jobs too.

LSD and mushrooms are illegal because the John Hopkins study showed people had profound and deep revelatory experiences which do not coincide with Christian outlooks. Also, though contrary to any evidence whatsoever from studies, these substances apparently make you jump out of buildings.

Heroin is illegal for similar reasons to pot, but research indicates it is extremely addicting, and there is demonstrable evidence of lives severely destroyed by the addiction. This last statement has been found to hold for alcohol as well as cocaine, meth, and several others.

>> No.4149360

>>4149325

No faggot. Pot was made illegal because Hemp is Cotton's #1 competitor, and since Cotton is the South's crop of choice, the government had to make sure no one would fuck them over, and Hemp and Pot are part of the same plant.

>> No.4149361
File: 2 KB, 134x106, thumbsup..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4149361

>>4149325
you seem to imply that there is some reason for any drug to be banned.

i refute that. the reasons change and shift.
for example, lets grant that we hold pot consumption to be harmful.
any state effort at restricting its use would be limited its own harm by the inherent harm in the drug.
meaning that once the persecution of pots caused more harm the drug the drug itself we would say "fuck it. harm(cure)>harm(disease)"

this will never happen. that is because there is no single "good" reason, only a chain of suspiciously-crappy reasons.

once you consider that there arent evil spirits inside any substance and that human will(the thing that drugs impair) is a bed time story you just stop caring.
pro or con, either is bullshit

>> No.4149372

>>4149360
got sauce to go with that pile?
the govt actively promoted the cultivation of hemp.
are you suggesting that they couldnt replace their cotton with hemp? that its cheaper to police-everywhere?

>> No.4149385

>>4149372

This was way back in the infancy of America's life. This was some aside from my US History textbook, and i remember it was pretty damn impartial.

>> No.4149407

>>4149360
So people are arrested, jailed, and convicted with felony drug charges which ruin chances of them ever having a decent job, all because of a cotton monopoly on material?

Sounds legit. But I won't doubt you. I see we have a few items we should address with this as a nation.

>> No.4149410

>>4149385
"sauce" doesnt mean "tell me a story".
it means "i think youre full of shit, give me a link that confirms what you say".

as in, put a link in your reply.

>> No.4149438

>>4149410
Look up hemp laws and the lobbying from the paper, lumber, and cotton industries in favor of them.

>> No.4149454

Because it doesn't lead to harder drugs in the same way weed does. Most alcoholics are also socially functional, unlike stoners.

>> No.4149492

>>4149438
a link nigger
they look like this:
http.domain.com/dumb/ass.html

>>4149454
you arent allowed to function is society as pothead.(fine with me, they filthy)
drug tests, criminal suppliers, etc.

youre defining "functioning" in terms of laws/norms.
go to jamaica or nordicland, tell me those potheads dont work/billpay.

>> No.4149501

>>4146827
If science was the determining factor, everything would be about extending lifespans to the detriment of individual choice.

>> No.4149521

>>4149454
>Because it doesn't lead to harder drugs in the same way weed does
Still believing that "gateway theory" bullshit? Most (i.e. 99.9%) pot smokers never touch harder drugs. The only mechanism through which weed is a "gateway drug" is the fact that weed, heroin, and crack are all illegal black market drugs, and if you can find weed you can probably find crack, heroin, etc. Dealers try to push pricier and more addictive items on you.

>> No.4149532

>>4149521 Dealers try to push pricier and more addictive items on you.
So that's why all winos are in the gutter drinking Chateau la Tour?

Fucking idiot apologist.

>> No.4149538

>>4149501
>implying that longer lifespans alone have implicit value.
why live longer? do to what?

>the detriment of individual choice.
said who?
are you implying that humans wouldnt choose to extend their lives given a choice?

make a claim. quit hiding behind weak language. its pathetic.

>>4149521
every murderer has drank water. ban water.

>> No.4149544

I smoke pot and function remarkably well. I guess that means I'm at least an order of magnitude more capable than a normal person, since a normal person is supposedly not functional on pot.

I've noticed some people question why I smoke, or to be more precise, why I have a "need" to smoke. They connote that I'm running from problems. When I turn the question back on them for why people need to drink, if only moderately for social interaction (drinking extends much farther than that however), they have no rational basis except to fall back on it bein a social norm and acceptable.
It's like asking a kid why they need a theme park. They don't need it, it's just for fun. We drink for fun. I smoke for fun. I just wish I wasn't perpetually on the wrong side of the country's laws for my choice in harmless fun.

>> No.4149545

>>4149538
if science determined law then everything your doctor says is harmful would be illegal.

I'm not going to bother answering your questions as they have nothing to do with what I said.

>> No.4149555

>>4149532
Because a drug dealer is obviously the same as the owner of a liquor store? I do love going to liquor stores and being told that unless I move 50 bottles of Chateau la Tour to cover my debt from buying too much cheap table wine, my kneecaps are going to be broken.

>> No.4149560

>>4149545
>if science determined law then everything your doctor says is harmful would be illegal.

>implying that making shit illegal means people stop.
dumbasses like this support SOPA.

>> No.4149570

>>4149555
>implying drug dealers are malicious and in it to make money
they wanna party nigger not high-finance.
do you really believe this?

>> No.4149591

>>4149570
lolno

Why would you deal if you wanted to party? You'd give your supply away and do it yourself. Drug dealing is a business, at least at levels that matter.

In any case, the reason alcohol isn't illegal is because we want it legal. And Prohibition really, really didn't work. Just like all prohibitions on drugs.

>> No.4149600

>>4149555
You jelly of my clinic here in southern cali? Bud here's the same as a liqour store minus the arabs

>>4149545
You dumbass. Right to harm myself / american dream / ron paul 2012

>> No.4149620

>>4149591
It depends on the person honestly. Black people tend to be in it for the money more in my experience. But I usually buy from my white buddies. They order pounds of it, and are always smoking bowls and blunts with me on the free because we all like pot. And it's fun having company.
My two cents

>> No.4149631

>>4149600
>You jelly of my clinic here in southern cali?
You bet your stoned ass I am. I just comfort myself with the knowledge it will be federally legal within a decade.

>>4149570
Yeah man, that crack dealer on the corner that will stab you if you look at him funny or act like a cop sure is in it to PAR-TAY. You know what, I think I'll wander to the nearest MS-13, Crip, or Blood hangout and ask where the blunts are at and if they want to party.

>> No.4149635

>>4149591
I used to 'slang' to my friends but just enough to keep me high. Most people you would consider drug dealers are like this

>> No.4149644

>>4149620
>courting customers in an environment with lots of competition

whoa, it's fucking nothing. It's not as if potheads aren't looking for any reason to blaze up. ANY REASON.

gotta love that racism, though.

>> No.4149649

>>4149635
Amazing, that's what a small business is.

>> No.4149655

>>4149591
>Why would you deal if you wanted to party?
bc you cant work in an office and bongrip.
you can sellpot to teenagers and bongrip.

>You'd give your supply away and do it yourself.
what are you even saying?
if i wanted to potsmoke i would give my connection away and have no income?
teenagers that move up the chain are teenagers that dont smokemeout and that dont subsidize my piece.

> Drug dealing is a business, at least at levels that matter.
maybe on the production/distribution end.
but on the "retail" end its all about getting your buddies to subsidize your fraction. and partying with them.

have you even maintained a relationship with a drug dealer?
they find money in their pockets that they forgot about.
they arent crunching spreadsheets.

>> No.4149672

>>4149655
That's cause they're fucking high half the time. e_e If not more.

>if i wanted to potsmoke i would give my connection away and have no income?
>income
>not a business
You're trying to absolve your conscious. You're concerning yourself with money. You're in it for revenue.

It's alright, bro. There's nothing wrong with selling drugs. You don't have to make excuses.

>> No.4149675

>>4149631
Jeez man you have the same view of the world as my mom. And my mom is pretty much isolated.

The black guy on the corner with crack in his pocket is the last person any sensible person will fuck with, stoners, shroomers, trippers alike.

Protip: 80% chance any waitress or food service employee smokes. I know this from experience. And a majority of them are highly decent.

I bet you also think people are immediately raped upon entering prison, that you are guarenteed hepatitis if you get a tattoo, that sexuality is a moral choice...

I'm sure I covered at least a few bases.

>> No.4149690

>>4149672
conscience even.

fuck.

>> No.4149717

Anyone come across any articles suggesting that alcohol giants like Anheuser Busch etc in funding anti-drug campaigns? It would seem that the alcohol industry would have the most to loss of other things that provide kicks for people become legal.

>> No.4149732

>>4149649
Hell yea, the american dream is living strong

>> No.4149736

>>4149672
there is something wrong with selling drugs.
it is a terrible way to make money.
you have to be available 24/7 and shitpieces will talk nonstop and beg when their short.

no rational person that values money over partying would rationally get into the retail end. (i already agreed that produc. and distr are diff.)
counter example?

>>4149675
its like people believe everything that the police tell them, huh?
that dealer on the corner does not want to get rich.
he wants to support a lifestyle that only drugdealing can.
he wants part time work, not too strenuous, pays out daily, subsidizes personal drug consumption, and is incredible flexible.

what does cornerdealing pay after deducting for timeinprison and healthexpenses?

>> No.4149740

>>4149717
conspiracy theorists hang out in /x/

>implying more potheads wouldnt mean more beer sales. cottonmouth.

>> No.4149754

>>4149740
Actually, tobacco usage would go way down if marijuana were legalized federally. The alcohol companies might fight with the tobacco industry but big tobacco is where the real lobbying is going on

>> No.4149793

>>4149740
>conspiracy theorists
Yeah, it's definitely a conspiracy that entities with large amounts of money would use those large amounts of money to influence the government to their favor. It is far-fetched.

Alcohol is objectively more damaging to the body that cannabis. If people knew this, they might drink less and smoke a joint instead of drinking a few beers when they're trying to relax. Plus, alcohol is physically addictive and will kill you in excess. Marijuana will do neither of those things.

>>4149754
You're right. When I quit smoking, I just smoked a joint every time I was jonesing for a cigarette. The symptoms of nicotine withdrawal lessened just enough to bearable. Pretty soon the cravings were few and far between, and now I don't smoke at all. Thanks, marijuana!

Also, the pharmaceutical industry fears the legalization of weed because it would make many drugs from Tylenol to anti-depressants obsolete.

>> No.4149811

>>4149793
>groups would want to do a thing
agree.

>groups have done/are doing a thing
unless you got sauce, its a conspiracy theory. (or speculation at best)
by definition bro.

>alcohol bad
true.

>other shit
anecdotal bro. also not very /sci/.

>> No.4149830

People against pot reason that it should remain illegal because it makes you lazy / impairs you.

People that want it legalized pretty much smoke already. So I guess it's assumed "hard working" individuals will start abusing the drug and somehow their desire to try it was not already there to begin with. It's like religious parents not wanting their kids around other beliefs for fear they will be "converted". Let people make their own choices. Not doing so limits their freedom (of course)

>> No.4149852

>>4149830
>People that want it legalized pretty much smoke already.

0/10

>> No.4149861

Why is suicide illegal? It is a fact people kill themselves regardless of efforts made to prevent it because for some the world sucks that bad. It's us that leaves as the only options putting a gun to their head, jumping off a building, or hanging, etc. If we just accepted some people's pleas to leave their life peacefully, it would be much more humane to administer a sedative and lethal drug.

People wouldnt have to deal with dealers if pot was legal. Many still would, but many would grow as well. It's the illegality that makes the drug dangerous, not the other way around.

It's us that makes the world hard on ourselves.

>> No.4149905

>>4149861
>Why is suicide illegal?

No one is ever actually charged with attempted suicide as a crime. The only reason it is "illegal" is to allow people (like police officers) to stop you if you're attempting it. It does make sense - ultimately someone who is really determined to kill themselves will always succeed, but if it's just a temporary self-destructive fit (or "cry for help," as it usually is), the life can be saved.

I absolutely agree, though, that there should be some mechanism for legal suicide and assisted suicide.

>> No.4149917

>>4149905
but stopping "cries for help" means that people can continue to use them.
if every time someone attempted suicide the officer shot them dead(or let them die) then people would reason that a "cry for help" (half-ass attempted suicide) is a poor choice.
instead they might seek help.

the logic you present is weak.
it isnt even compassionate.
(it promotes suicide attempting as a valid means of getting help)

>> No.4149985
File: 69 KB, 330x487, 3f92ecca.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4149985

Alcohol is the foundation of our civilisation.

A million years ago, people were hunter-gatherers. Then, mysteriously, people started staying in a single spot and harvesting wheat, barley, roots, fruits. Year round harvesting started up.

But hunter-gatherers still ate better than sedentary tribes. They ate more meat, more fish and a greater variety of plants. What benefit would living in one single place do?

You deck out your cave with furs, sure. But you can also ferment all that stuff you grow, for one! Protecting the assets you create means you stay. Maybe you build

It's why putting people in prisons feel so good for civilised people: teach em to brew hooch, make em form tribes, carve shanks out of rocks and as much religion as you can cram into them. Also, way too much gay sex.

It's Gilgamesh and Enkidu all over. The only piece missing is Enkidu teaching Gilgamesh that strength doesn't always equal right. Then the quest for eternal civilisation begins.

Perhaps the earliest depiction of a high five?

>> No.4150013

>>4146257
>implying that the same does not go for cocaine, marjuana, lsd, psylocibin,

if you consume these in moderation and small amounts they are spade loads less harmful than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

>> No.4150027

>>4149917
>but stopping "cries for help" means that people can continue to use them.
>if every time someone attempted suicide the officer shot them dead(or let them die) then people would reason that a "cry for help" (half-ass attempted suicide) is a poor choice.
>instead they might seek help.

No, because at the time of the actual attempt, they really are trying to kill themselves, at least on some level. It's only after the fact that they are glad someone stopped them.

>> No.4150060

>>4150027
we should base our laws not on what people are doing now, but on how that person is likely to feel in the future?

give that shit a name.
i propose futurepreferenceism.

>> No.4150065

The government doesn't have the right to tell us what to do with our own bodies. Or at least shouldn't have the right. In an ideal world. That's why I oppose helmet laws and seat belt laws, because it's not the responsibility of the government to take care of me, what I do with my life is my business. Only an authoritarian fuck would disagree with this.

>> No.4150070

It isn't.
I am 12 and don't no what this is.

>> No.4150076

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

Told by Benjamin Franklin.

>> No.4150077

>>4149985
This. Fucking this.
Also, if you accept some of Julian Jaynes's postulates, it can be argued that fermented honey (mead) and fruits caused the proto-Human's great ape brain to split and the corpus callosum to form, causing abstract thought, reasoning, and civilization.
Cannabis is indigenous to central and south Asia, but all the Europeans and Near Easterners had were shrooms (only Vikings going on berserker-trips) and alcohol (everybody on the fucking continent).
Is it such a coincidence that Europeans took over the world?

>> No.4150078

If you can't handle your drink OP, just say no!

>> No.4150079

>>4149291
that's somewhat true actually. Alcohol will never be banned in Europe not only because it is socially acceptable but also because it is part of the culture.
Just imagine the French gov trying to ban wine or the Germanic country govs trying to ban beer.

>> No.4150087

>>4150060

To a certain extent, yes, we should. People are not in their right minds 100% of the time. If you're staggering drunk and try to get in a car, I'm not going to feel bad about hiding your keys. If you're a six year old and you come into my tattoo parlor, I'm not going to feel bad about calling your parents.

>> No.4150083

Alcohol was for a long time, the only clean* drink around.
The Romans even had a God for alcohol because its so good.

*no germs etc.

>> No.4150085

>>4150077
>Is it such a coincidence that Europeans took over the world?
Yes. You're ignoring a million other factors. Plus, that's not how evolution or development works. Even if alcohol did cause changes in the brain, those changes are not passed to offspring.

>> No.4150091

theres no outside harm in alcohol except when a drunk person has access to dangerous machinery

>> No.4150094

One word OP, recreation.
Humans are a sociable race who have always liked to party.

>> No.4150096

>>4146299
>>4146279
>>Marijuana is already legal in here the good ol' PDX. The only is that you can't share, sell, or buy it, and you can only smoke on your property.

Enjoy your experience when some federal agent doesn't give a shit about PDX law and arrests you on federal charges.

>> No.4150102

>>4150085
So you're saying that, over tens of thousands of years, a genetic line cannot adapt to foreign chemicals regularly digested by the body?
>>4150083
Yes. Romans. Gotta love em.

>> No.4150112

Alcohol is illegal because people were tired of dying over its prohibition.

Now if only the dumbshits of this country would realize that we have more people in jail per capita than any other country on the planet precisely because of pot's prohibition, we might actually start making progress. You want to talk about unnecessary government spending? Having millions of people tying up the judicial system with lawyers, judges, parole officers, etc., etc. instead of just taxing it and creating an entirely new industry... I mean, holy fuck...

Just bring on World War 3 already. The fact that people are too dumb to figure this shit out on their own means the species is doomed.

>> No.4150113

>>4150102
>I don't think any society has ever consumed alcohol on such a scale and so regularly that anything that could be considered what you're mentioning has happened.

>> No.4150116

>>4150112
>Alcohol is illegal
>legal

>> No.4150200
File: 63 KB, 524x584, 170667-6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4150200

>>4146257

> the effect of alcohol and its consequences are pretty damn minimal in comparison to other substances, and people are actually capable of being responsible with it

From the CDC website:

"Mortality:
Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 14,406
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 23,199"

This is from the US alone. Yearly.

The only reason you believe alcohol to be less harmful than most illegal drugs is because you've been socially brainwashed, and now accept these social norms without question - you and everyone else around you are doing it so it seems an integral part of human life. People can be more responsible? Really? "People" are the least responsible animal I've ever seen. I'd rather let a rhesus monkey drive than I would a 21-year old college student heading out to buy more booze for his party.

mfw I'd even make coffee illegal, not to mention marijuana and alcohol. If I were the emperor of the human race I'd give the death penalty to people who do ANY kind of work or activity that could endanger others while high.
Alas, I'm not the emperor.

>> No.4150207

>>4150200

If you were the emperor, I'd shoot you in the head and be declared a hero, so your retarded laws wouldn't last long anyway.

>> No.4150210

>>4150200
>capable of being responsible with it

>Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 14,406
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 23,199"

Of those NOT CAPABLE.

Its is no reason to ban it because some people can't say when.

>> No.4150211

scientists ought to be barred from drinking, as their calculations and observations require exquisite clearheadedness, but there is nothing wrogn with the general public imbibing

>> No.4150221

>>4150200

2/3rds of American adults consume alcohol, so that means that the vast majority seem to be doing fine.

>> No.4150228

>>4150200
Why isn't water illegal? did you know that 100% of homicides last year, the perpetrator consumed water within the last 24 hours?
/sarcasm
Alcohol only has such a large impact because so many people consume it. It would be ridiculous to compare those numbers to say, heroin related death, because noone does heroin.

>> No.4150224

>>4150200
>I'd even make coffee illegal

why.jpg

>> No.4150234

>>4150207

You're welcome to try, buddy, my all-female army of sexy red-headed bodyguards will shoot you on sight. Also, why would a simpleton like you be allowed to live in my glorious era?

>>4150210

> because some people can't say when
> some people
> 14,406 + 23,199 = 37,605 people every year - not including the ones they take with them to the grave, their family members, the life of neglecting their duties and responsibilities etc.

And I thought /sci/ could do math.

>> No.4150242

>>4150200

Is this post a parody of people who lack critical thinking skills?

>> No.4150254

>>4150234
>37,605
is nothing on the grand schema of things.
more people a year die and cripple them selves from falling down the stairs, should we make stairs illegal too?

>> No.4150260

What is humanity with out a little death?

>> No.4150261

>>4150254
>should we make stairs illegal too?

He probably thinks we should, so that argument won't work.

>> No.4150262

>>4150228

Yes, because the difference between the effects of water and alcohol on the human nervous system are negligible. You know exactly why alcohol is dangerous yet you suggest that everyone needs it to survive, that it's impossible to go without, that it hasn't been proven to be the direct cause to the death in each of those cases, and in general to make people who think moderation is good look like conservative assholes.

Yes, alcohol is fun in moderation.
So is heroin.
Why not trust people with the second when you do with the first? Because you have the false assumption that the first is more manageable and less addictive / directly harmful than the second.

>> No.4150267

MAKING SOMETHING ILLEGAL IS NOT THE SAME THING AS MAKING THAT THING CEASE TO EXIST

Saying "hurr alcohol is bad" is meaningless. The choices are legalization or prohibition. Clearly, prohibition is just counterproductive.

>> No.4150271

Why are vehicles still legal? Those things are half a ton of twisted death metal just waiting to bear down on your children and convert them into a gristled mess of bone and flesh!

>> No.4150272

>>4150262

yeah slippery slope arguments are pretty rad

>> No.4150284
File: 35 KB, 402x604, 1312145413674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4150284

>>4150254

If after you fell down the stairs and broke your leg, you were unable to notice due to your injury that you're unable to walk, drive, and operate machinery, and you insisted on doing so none the less, and repeatedly for many years you'd insist on falling down and breaking your legs over and over again every day - then yes, I'd make stairs illegal. Also, if you were DELIBERATELY constantly injured for the first, say, 15 years of your child's life and so couldn't take care of him/her and cause them mental disability, then I'd also send you to jail.
inb4 I don't have an abusive alcoholic father, not that it would have taken away from my argument anyway.

>> No.4150298

>>4150267
>>4150267
>>4150267
>>4150267
>>4150267
>>4150267

>> No.4150312

>>4150284

What in the ass are you rambling on about

There's a reason consuming alcohol and doing something stupid like driving alcohol are viewed as different things under the law. One of them is legal because tehy harm nobody, the other is illegal because it has the potential to seriously harm someone. If you want to usher in some magnificant nanny state where everything in society that has a legitimate use AND the potential to harm at the same time is banned, you might as well take Vehicles, guns, knives, matches, lighters, lawnmowers, bicycles, furniture with sharp corners, canned foods that produce sharp edges when opening, bathtubs that fill with enough water for the potential to drown, etc.

Hell, the only REASONABLE thing to do is lock everyone inside a room with rubber walls and feed them through a tube so they don't choke.

>> No.4150319

>>4150271
thats right.
and what do cars get us?
convenience, transported goods, expanded personal range?
is all that worth the death? wont someone think of the chidren!

>> No.4150322

>>4150272

Not a slippery slope at all. These two are man-made drugs which have little to no physical benefit (altered mental state aside), with direct and apparent side effects, and are both cause to much death and suffering; however, one is legal, and the other illegal. The claim was made that alcohol shouldn't be made illegal because, unlike other drugs, alcohol is much more manageable and therefore people can be trusted to use it wisely, which results in lower amount of negative effects on society - say, number of deaths per year.
My point was that people are much less responsible than he claimed, and alcohol is a lot more destructive than he assumes, and that (as far as I'm concerned) it should be treated just as other addictive and destructive drugs are treated - by being outlawed.

Again, on the same note: yes, people will keep making alcohol illegally. People also keep making crystal meth, and they will keep doing it - or any other synthetic substance that comes along - forever; do we let them do it legally and simply inspect the product line more closely and require them to get official government approval for their brand name?

>> No.4150331

The difference between alcohol and heroin is that alcohol has been part of human culture for thousands of years.

>> No.4150338

>>4150322

what? analgesia is a "physical benefit" you ninny, bayer (the aspirin people) used to manufacture heroin

>> No.4150348

>>4150331

So have entheogenic psychedelics. Psilocybin mushrooms have been used by many different indiginous peoples, including the Aztecs. Ayahuasca (DMT) has been brewed for thousands of years by tribes in the Amazon rainforest, and is still brewed today. Iboga is eaten for visionary and religious experiences in Africa, and is believed to be the Tree of Knowledge. The Indian religions drank Soma, which is credited as possibly being the hallucinogenic Amanita Muscaria mushroom. Native American Churches have been using Mescaline for over 400 years. They have been around as long as Alcohol has, why aren't these things legal to consume?

>> No.4150349

>>4150319

That's a nice strawman. You know what they call that cared-thingy we (well, I don't know your age) keep in our wallets? a DRIVER'S LICENSE - it's an official approval that we know the rules of the road and that we have the sufficient physical and mental capacity to operate a vehicle. And yes, I believe the rules on who gets to drive two tons of metal at 90mph should be more strict. But you know what happens when you show that you are no longer capable of driving? They take your license away so that you don't endanger others. But with alcohol, if someone gets drunk three times you don't take away his liver - which is a shame because there's a shortage of liver-donors. Donate your organs, kids!

>> No.4150363

>>4148274
>If the country took the money we use to arrest pot smokers and put it into drug education and rehabilitation we would be way better off.
California is not better off. Your argument is invalid.

>> No.4150372

Is it logically consistent to of the opinion that Alcohol should be legal, cigarettes should be legal, but cannabis should not be legal?

I can understand the positions "All 3 should be legal" and "All 3 should be illegal", but I can't really understand the current reality.

>> No.4150386

>>4150338
so a kid growing up in a house with heroin using and alcohol abstaining parents will get a "heroin is this guys culture" waiver from downtown?
is that your position?

>>4150349
i was strawmanning. you called it.
if a eatingwhile driving person is more likely to hit someone than a drunkdriving person, would you support a ban on eatingwhiledriving?
if not, why?
what if this ban causes more harm(using any definition, your choice) than it reduces? would you support its repeal?
if not, why?

>> No.4150402

>>4150386

of course... what constitutes medicine, what's an illicit drug, what's poison and what's food are all entirely culture-bound

>> No.4150414

>>4150402
so theres nothing we can say about the interactions of certain chemicals and the human body?
its all individually unique and perfectly relative?
0/10

>> No.4150418

>>4150349

That is just one of the MANY terrible dangers that exist in our society! It is your MORAL DUTY to make everyone safe by ELIMINATING everything that may pose any possible danger to anyone, regardless of its intrinsic value! (Start here
>>4150312
for a good guide on how to do so!)

>> No.4150455

>>4150386

> Hurr we do lots of things that affect our driving, are you going to make the socially unpopular claim that we should outlaw them as well?

Yes.
In fact, where I live you need to have both hands on the wheel to maintain control in case of potential threat - anything that occupies your hands (cellphone, sandwich, flipping some guy off) makes you more likely to be called responsible for the accident, and some could just get you pulled over by a cop that would give you a ticket for not driving safely. Get enough tickets, and your license is gone. Simple that, huh?

>causes more harm(using any definition, your choice) than it reduces
1. I never cared for the utilliterian approach to the law, if the right thing to do comes at the cost of some guys' chance to score drunk babes then so be it.
2. Any definition? My definition to harm is "anything that displeases me", here, now I have a lasting excuse for all my creeds under the guise of utiliterianism.

>> No.4150598

>>4150455
damn bro.

what if a certain class of people, sober and responsible, were statistically below the acceptable standard for driving?
for example, asians.
under those circumstances would you support a ban on asian-drivers?

> I never cared for the utilliterian approach to the law
bro, your entire reasoning is *utilitarian*.
(tip:learn to use your browsers spellcheck)
your second point missed me. try again?