3 ms·

I'm tempted to start the full deontology and Jellinek model on substance abuse on this, but don't have the effort now. If we perform a cost benefit analysis on

by shrubby 4mo ago

I'm tempted to start the full deontology and Jellinek model on substance abuse on this, but don't have the effort now. If we perform a cost benefit analysis on alcohol the downsides are plentiful and then some. And the pluses are practically masked versions (taste, buzz,...) of the two major things that make human do anything: what others are doing and what I'm used to (which are pretty shit reasons to do anything IMO) it basically boils down to addiction. Not chemical, but functional and social. Then we return to the cost benefit analysis and start figuring out how far the lying disease has progressed. The fierceness of the debate feels like a good indicator of this usually. I'd be tempted to explain this more in depth, but I have stuff to do.

hnlmorg 4mo ago
I actually don’t disagree with some of that. But that’s not the point I was discussing. Let me put it another way: banning something that most people use sensibly and enjoy in moderation isn’t a society that anyone wants to live in nor should live in. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the government went after something you enjoyed that caused harm to a minority of other people. Which is why I keep coming back to the cake analogy. The only reason people eat cake is because of the buzz and taste. Which are pretty shit reasons to do anything in your opinion. And people do get addicted to sugary snacks. Some people even eat for comfort. But a lot of other people do have self-control. Should we ban cake for everyone regardless? Of course not! As I said in my earlier comment, the problem with substance abuse isn’t the alcohol. The alcohol is just a tool. If you banned alcohol today then people who want escapism will switch to something else. And we’ve seen this trend time and time again throughout history. And it's what any experienced doctor of medicine will also tell you. So if you want to understand the problems of alcohol abuse better, you need to first understand what drove people to abuse alcohol. Banning alcohol isn’t a shortcut to solving that problem -- despite how much you might like it to be. Also accusing all people who drink, even those who only do so occasionally, as being addicts (as you literally have done) is so far wrong that it’s just insulting.
- shrubby 4mo ago
  Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in. But the choice is not mine, so in that way I win. It's a social norm and a poison from my POV and just like pfas or plastic in the drinking water I believe it should be controlled and the lobbying banned. Then we'd see the true wish of humanity. Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised. The norm is manufactured. Just like the addictive algorithms and almost any other thing in this world of pseudo-free will. Even the likes of Joe Rogan are bringing up the issue, with many others so I see some light in the tunnel for my society, but so far you're right. Your side seems to be winning.
  - hnlmorg 4mo ago
    > Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in. Alcohol isn't like cigarettes. It's more like coffee or cake in terms of the social aspect. You clearly have huge prejudice against alcohol as a whole, but you need to understand that the vast majority of people who drink, do not drink like the minority of people you associate with alcohol. Also, cigarettes haven't been banned. Their sale has just been hugely restricted. Which is also true for alcohol. > Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised. You're now just reiterating the same point I made elsewhere ;) > Your side seems to be winning. It's not a battle to win. It’s about choice and support. You are responsible for making your own choices. But you shouldn't be dictating how others should live their own lives. The way a healthy society works is you give people opportunities and support, and the freedom for individuals to make their own choices. However what you're advocating is taking those choices away for everyone based on your own personal prejudices of a small few. And that's not a world anyone else wants to live in. You also keep ignoring my point that the actual subsection of society you have a problem with (alcoholics) are the same subsection of society that needs support first. If you simply take the booze away, then their underlying mental health and addiction will just drive them to switch to different substances. And if you solve their condition first, then alcohol no longer is the problem you protest so strongly against. Simply put, you really don't understand the thing you have such a strong opinion about. And it's evidenced by the fact that you keep sidestepping the real issues behind alcohol. But you still want to restrict peoples freedoms regardless.
cindyllm 4mo ago
[dead]

by shrubby 4mo ago

hnlmorg 4mo ago

I actually don’t disagree with some of that. But that’s not the point I was discussing. Let me put it another way: banning something that most people use sensibly and enjoy in moderation isn’t a society that anyone wants to live in nor should live in. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the government went after something you enjoyed that caused harm to a minority of other people. Which is why I keep coming back to the cake analogy. The only reason people eat cake is because of the buzz and taste. Which are pretty shit reasons to do anything in your opinion. And people do get addicted to sugary snacks. Some people even eat for comfort. But a lot of other people do have self-control. Should we ban cake for everyone regardless? Of course not! As I said in my earlier comment, the problem with substance abuse isn’t the alcohol. The alcohol is just a tool. If you banned alcohol today then people who want escapism will switch to something else. And we’ve seen this trend time and time again throughout history. And it's what any experienced doctor of medicine will also tell you. So if you want to understand the problems of alcohol abuse better, you need to first understand what drove people to abuse alcohol. Banning alcohol isn’t a shortcut to solving that problem -- despite how much you might like it to be. Also accusing all people who drink, even those who only do so occasionally, as being addicts (as you literally have done) is so far wrong that it’s just insulting.

shrubby 4mo ago
Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in. But the choice is not mine, so in that way I win. It's a social norm and a poison from my POV and just like pfas or plastic in the drinking water I believe it should be controlled and the lobbying banned. Then we'd see the true wish of humanity. Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised. The norm is manufactured. Just like the addictive algorithms and almost any other thing in this world of pseudo-free will. Even the likes of Joe Rogan are bringing up the issue, with many others so I see some light in the tunnel for my society, but so far you're right. Your side seems to be winning.
- hnlmorg 4mo ago
  > Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in. Alcohol isn't like cigarettes. It's more like coffee or cake in terms of the social aspect. You clearly have huge prejudice against alcohol as a whole, but you need to understand that the vast majority of people who drink, do not drink like the minority of people you associate with alcohol. Also, cigarettes haven't been banned. Their sale has just been hugely restricted. Which is also true for alcohol. > Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised. You're now just reiterating the same point I made elsewhere ;) > Your side seems to be winning. It's not a battle to win. It’s about choice and support. You are responsible for making your own choices. But you shouldn't be dictating how others should live their own lives. The way a healthy society works is you give people opportunities and support, and the freedom for individuals to make their own choices. However what you're advocating is taking those choices away for everyone based on your own personal prejudices of a small few. And that's not a world anyone else wants to live in. You also keep ignoring my point that the actual subsection of society you have a problem with (alcoholics) are the same subsection of society that needs support first. If you simply take the booze away, then their underlying mental health and addiction will just drive them to switch to different substances. And if you solve their condition first, then alcohol no longer is the problem you protest so strongly against. Simply put, you really don't understand the thing you have such a strong opinion about. And it's evidenced by the fact that you keep sidestepping the real issues behind alcohol. But you still want to restrict peoples freedoms regardless.

cindyllm 4mo ago

[dead]