4 ms·

Unlike most diseases, alcoholism has direct and often violent effects on second parties. Sure, “think of the children” is a cliche, but it exists for a reason.

Unlike most diseases, alcoholism has direct and often violent effects on second parties. Sure, “think of the children” is a cliche, but it exists for a reason. Second, you equate prison and taxes, and declare both to be morally unsound. It’s a neat rhetorical trick, but like my math instructor used to say: “show your work.” As far as I know, taxes work. Additionally you assume that alcoholism (even treated as a disease) is the target of these policies. What about the cost of alcohol on non-addicts? The social drinker that misjudged their state and crashed a car? The kid who fucks up his liver because he took Tylenol to treat his hangover? Even if a tax won’t deter an alcoholic it might work for the rest of society.

zzzeek 7y ago
> Second, you equate prison and taxes, hardly? > and declare both to be morally unsound. hardly? > It’s a neat rhetorical trick, but like my math instructor used to say: like my english instructor would say, "did you even read the book?" > The social drinker that misjudged their state and crashed a car? they'd be incarcerated for drunk driving, not drinking in and of itself. > The kid who fucks up his liver because he took Tylenol to treat his hangover? you can screw up your liver taking too many tylenols without alcohol, and a privileged high school kid isn't not going to drink at some party because taxes made it cost a few dollars more. alcohol taxes are only going to impact low income people in any meaningful way. if the theory is, well these damn poor people just keep drinking too much and can't control themselves, the alcohol is not the reason for that, the poverty is. Address poverty, not punishing people for being poor. edit: if I may add some tangible detail, in my extended family are some extremely impoverished, extremely diseased alcoholics. What these people need urgently, right now, is medical care and addiction rehabilitation services. Like, several weeks in a quality in-patient facility would be great, such a thing costs tens of thousands of dollars and is available only to the very privileged. Medical care and quality rehabilitation services are not generally available to impoverished people in the US. An alcohol tax would quite directly mean they simply would have even less money to buy food, which would directly impact the health of their 16 year old son, and incarcerating them would also destroy whatever financial ability they have left to survive. It's pretty offensive to read about proposals just to tax and punish people negatively affected by alcohol without even a consideration for the rehabilitation and medical services they desparately need and are denied by the US system of health care. Address the health care and poverty first. Going straight to punishment is cruel and out of touch.
- true_religion 7y ago
  The truth is that if you make a law for the betterment of general society, it’s poor people who you want to target simply because there are more of them. Trying to coral rich people with far greater resources to circumvent laws just leads to laws that are more oppressive and far reaching to yield the same effects.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Sure, “think of the children” is a cliche, but it exists for a reason. Yes, and the reason it exists is that it's a thought-terminating rhetorical technique that has proven effective at getting people to support government actions without critical thinking about whether there is even a plausible argument that the action serves he nominal goal.
- shados 7y ago
  Not wrong. If we take tobacco laws, with the cancer side effects, frequently going "omg don't expose the children to it!". Really, the reason people pushed to ban smoking is because its fucking annoying and little more. "Think of the children and cancer" was just an easier way to get the point through.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > If we take tobacco laws, with the cancer side effects, frequently going "omg don't expose the children to it!". Indoor tobacco bans in public spaces were pushed largely by labor groups as a workplace health and safety issue.
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
Something must be done. This is something. We must do this!

zzzeek 7y ago

> Second, you equate prison and taxes, hardly? > and declare both to be morally unsound. hardly? > It’s a neat rhetorical trick, but like my math instructor used to say: like my english instructor would say, "did you even read the book?" > The social drinker that misjudged their state and crashed a car? they'd be incarcerated for drunk driving, not drinking in and of itself. > The kid who fucks up his liver because he took Tylenol to treat his hangover? you can screw up your liver taking too many tylenols without alcohol, and a privileged high school kid isn't not going to drink at some party because taxes made it cost a few dollars more. alcohol taxes are only going to impact low income people in any meaningful way. if the theory is, well these damn poor people just keep drinking too much and can't control themselves, the alcohol is not the reason for that, the poverty is. Address poverty, not punishing people for being poor. edit: if I may add some tangible detail, in my extended family are some extremely impoverished, extremely diseased alcoholics. What these people need urgently, right now, is medical care and addiction rehabilitation services. Like, several weeks in a quality in-patient facility would be great, such a thing costs tens of thousands of dollars and is available only to the very privileged. Medical care and quality rehabilitation services are not generally available to impoverished people in the US. An alcohol tax would quite directly mean they simply would have even less money to buy food, which would directly impact the health of their 16 year old son, and incarcerating them would also destroy whatever financial ability they have left to survive. It's pretty offensive to read about proposals just to tax and punish people negatively affected by alcohol without even a consideration for the rehabilitation and medical services they desparately need and are denied by the US system of health care. Address the health care and poverty first. Going straight to punishment is cruel and out of touch.

true_religion 7y ago
The truth is that if you make a law for the betterment of general society, it’s poor people who you want to target simply because there are more of them. Trying to coral rich people with far greater resources to circumvent laws just leads to laws that are more oppressive and far reaching to yield the same effects.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Sure, “think of the children” is a cliche, but it exists for a reason. Yes, and the reason it exists is that it's a thought-terminating rhetorical technique that has proven effective at getting people to support government actions without critical thinking about whether there is even a plausible argument that the action serves he nominal goal.

shados 7y ago
Not wrong. If we take tobacco laws, with the cancer side effects, frequently going "omg don't expose the children to it!". Really, the reason people pushed to ban smoking is because its fucking annoying and little more. "Think of the children and cancer" was just an easier way to get the point through.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > If we take tobacco laws, with the cancer side effects, frequently going "omg don't expose the children to it!". Indoor tobacco bans in public spaces were pushed largely by labor groups as a workplace health and safety issue.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

Something must be done. This is something. We must do this!