10 ms·

I think the attitude might be that we should prohibit and punish the behaviors, not the source. If someone is being belligerent or otherwise disruptive in a pub

by ysavir 5y ago

I think the attitude might be that we should prohibit and punish the behaviors, not the source. If someone is being belligerent or otherwise disruptive in a public space, whether or not they're drinking alcohol should not be a factor. And if someone is drinking alcohol without being disruptive, is there cause to punish or prohibit their behavior?

killjoywashere 5y ago
Except it should be, because alcoholism is in fact a lethal disease all on its own and frequently overlies serious mental health issues, including things like domestic abuse, drunk driving, etc. Where there’s smoke, look for fire.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  But this was about public vs private drinking. Many, if not most, problem drinkers drink in private. Cherry-picking some visible issue X, that may be related to a more complex underlying problem Y, just because it's visible, is called window-dressing and is in general a very ineffective way to try to solve Y (and honestly, solving Y is often not even the goal, marketing speeches notwithstanding).
  - killjoywashere 5y ago
    I think we have a disagreement about the number of problems. I agree with you at to the 0th iteration but in the particular example of alcohol, the externalities are so large, the perturbation is important and we should make sure the model is “as simple as possible, but no simpler”. So your statement “If someone is being belligerent or otherwise disruptive in a public space, whether or not they're drinking alcohol should not be a factor” Please find a different example, or, if you believe in the goal of improving human society, please revise that statement. Belligerence and other disruptiveness involving alcohol should be tracked, because it can reveal the deeper problem that is present in some (honestly, many) cases of public belligerence and disruptiveness once a trend is established. Saving lives is important all on it’s own.

by ysavir 5y ago

killjoywashere 5y ago

Except it should be, because alcoholism is in fact a lethal disease all on its own and frequently overlies serious mental health issues, including things like domestic abuse, drunk driving, etc. Where there’s smoke, look for fire.

Sharlin 5y ago
But this was about public vs private drinking. Many, if not most, problem drinkers drink in private. Cherry-picking some visible issue X, that may be related to a more complex underlying problem Y, just because it's visible, is called window-dressing and is in general a very ineffective way to try to solve Y (and honestly, solving Y is often not even the goal, marketing speeches notwithstanding).
- killjoywashere 5y ago
  I think we have a disagreement about the number of problems. I agree with you at to the 0th iteration but in the particular example of alcohol, the externalities are so large, the perturbation is important and we should make sure the model is “as simple as possible, but no simpler”. So your statement “If someone is being belligerent or otherwise disruptive in a public space, whether or not they're drinking alcohol should not be a factor” Please find a different example, or, if you believe in the goal of improving human society, please revise that statement. Belligerence and other disruptiveness involving alcohol should be tracked, because it can reveal the deeper problem that is present in some (honestly, many) cases of public belligerence and disruptiveness once a trend is established. Saving lives is important all on it’s own.