4 ms·

These are arguments for individuals to stop drinking. Not arguments for the government getting involved.

CrampusDestrus 3y ago
Less car accidents to deal with, less domestic violence and general violence episodes to deal with, less divorces to deal with, less health problems to deal with and I could go on
- secstate 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - messe 3y ago
    Get out of here with that prescriptivist nonsense. It's perfectly valid to use "less" for all of those things in pretty much every dialect of English.
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      [flagged]
- apple4ever 3y ago
  And yet drug prohibition has made those worse, not to mention the worse policing for people.
AtlasLion 3y ago
Domestic abuse is made worse with alcohol, car accidents, work accidents... There are many way the whole society pays for allowing people access to a drug such as alcohol.
- te_203943059 3y ago
  Prohibition generally has fared poorly even for more complicated chemicals, but alcohol is essentially made from food. The ingredients for beer (and its distilled relations, whisky / scotch) are quite similar to the ingredients for leavened bread. There is an "iron law of prohibition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition) which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases. Such was what happened in the original Prohibition in the US; beer and wine were ditched in favor of more potent hard liquor, which was often poorly made and possibly dangerous to consume. There seems to be some contradictory opinions on Prohibition's overall effects, but what I seem to gather is that, while drinking overall went down, access to alcohol was still fairly easy (as alcohol isn't difficult to make), and the problem drinkers became more disruptive (due to consuming stronger, often poorly made stuff).
- mock-possum 3y ago
  Right, but - I have never engaged in domestic abuse. I have never caused a car accident. I have never had a work accident. And yet, I drink daily. Why should my own enjoyment of life be curtailed, simply because others can't behave themselves? That would be punishing me for others' failings, and that is unjust.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    Not that agree with prohibition, I don't; but the general answer to your question is because that's how society works. Sometime you have to give something up because in net in makes things better overall.
  - AwaAwa 3y ago
    Individual freedom is out. Communal reins are in. Unless you missed the coercion in the last decade, and more recently in the last three years. And somehow there will always be someone that tries to justify the ever slippery, 'for the greater good'.

Less car accidents to deal with, less domestic violence and general violence episodes to deal with, less divorces to deal with, less health problems to deal with and I could go on

secstate 3y ago
[flagged]
- messe 3y ago
  Get out of here with that prescriptivist nonsense. It's perfectly valid to use "less" for all of those things in pretty much every dialect of English.
  - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    [flagged]
apple4ever 3y ago
And yet drug prohibition has made those worse, not to mention the worse policing for people.

AtlasLion 3y ago

Domestic abuse is made worse with alcohol, car accidents, work accidents... There are many way the whole society pays for allowing people access to a drug such as alcohol.

te_203943059 3y ago
Prohibition generally has fared poorly even for more complicated chemicals, but alcohol is essentially made from food. The ingredients for beer (and its distilled relations, whisky / scotch) are quite similar to the ingredients for leavened bread. There is an "iron law of prohibition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition) which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases. Such was what happened in the original Prohibition in the US; beer and wine were ditched in favor of more potent hard liquor, which was often poorly made and possibly dangerous to consume. There seems to be some contradictory opinions on Prohibition's overall effects, but what I seem to gather is that, while drinking overall went down, access to alcohol was still fairly easy (as alcohol isn't difficult to make), and the problem drinkers became more disruptive (due to consuming stronger, often poorly made stuff).
mock-possum 3y ago
Right, but - I have never engaged in domestic abuse. I have never caused a car accident. I have never had a work accident. And yet, I drink daily. Why should my own enjoyment of life be curtailed, simply because others can't behave themselves? That would be punishing me for others' failings, and that is unjust.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  Not that agree with prohibition, I don't; but the general answer to your question is because that's how society works. Sometime you have to give something up because in net in makes things better overall.
- AwaAwa 3y ago
  Individual freedom is out. Communal reins are in. Unless you missed the coercion in the last decade, and more recently in the last three years. And somehow there will always be someone that tries to justify the ever slippery, 'for the greater good'.