4 ms·
you wouldn't allow drugs in traffic and you wouldn't want them in public. Alcohol use shows that not always is drug use constrained to private settings, so ther
by trowaybloway 9y ago
you wouldn't allow drugs in traffic and you wouldn't want them in public. Alcohol use shows that not always is drug use constrained to private settings, so there is the argument against it, because what starts in private might under the influence end up in an inappropriate place.
- freedomben 9y agoFollowing that logic we must also ban sex, because some people don't constrain it to private settings and sometimes take it into public places that are inappropriate.
- trowaybloway 9y agoOne thing after another, in order of death toll.
- manigandham 9y agoAlcohol is allowed so what exactly are you saying? When it was banned under prohibition in the US, it didnt change much either. There will always be irresponsible people, however we shouldn't intrude on the freedoms of everyone for the faults of a few.
- trowaybloway 9y agoI was not strictly promoting prohibitive penalization, for one. My comment tried to clarify whether intoxication was res publique or purely private. The fallacies in your conclusion are: > freedoms of everyone > faults of a few Whether intoxication leads to freedom is debatable. Secondly, casualties from alcohol abuse are hardly "a few". You say people susceptible to the detrimental effects, perhaps from a preexisting tendency for lack of inhibition and aptitude are responsible. Whereas they are literally irresponsible. Further, your comment in response to my question could be understood to uphold the right to a buzz over thousands of deaths a year.