5 ms·
Yes, but I doubt a government could "control people" at a societal level through control of alcohol addicts.
by Chris2048 4y ago
Yes, but I doubt a government could "control people" at a societal level through control of alcohol addicts.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoThe article isn't about controlling people, so much as controlling the access and availability of alcohol. And not everyone who has a problem with alcohol is necessarily and addict. Consider the difference between a wedding reception with and without an open bar and the likelihood of drunken incidents. Compare that with a reception where there is no alcohol served at all. True that a hard-core addict can sneak some in, but the chances of the rest of the guests behaving badly reduces substantially and proportionately with their ease of access to drinks.
- Chris2048 4y agoThe article isn't, but the post I replied to is. > not everyone who has a problem with alcohol is necessarily and addict I said if you can be controlled via alcohol you have a problem (with alcohol, an addiction) not that everyone who has a problem with alcohol can be controlled through it. I would argue anyone who can be controlled via alcohol is an addict, and not just someone with a problem.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoOk, then back to the wedding reception example. Imagine someone who is not an alcoholic, just a regular person who has a drink now and again. This person, if given access to an open bar, might have a few too many drinks and cause a scene, but if it was a paid bar would only have one or two and be fine. The person's behavior could therefore be 'controlled' by changing the availability to drinks; i.e. putting a cost on each drink reduces how many they have and the corresponding bad behavior they could potentially engage in if they had too many.
- Chris2048 4y agoBut then, that would be "crime" control legit, not "in the name of".
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoI don't understand what you mean by this.