Thanks for the responses to my earlier post.
Dox47 wrote:
Murihiku wrote:
If it were a more popular opinion, it may have a better shot at success.
It was popular enough at the time to get a Constitutional amendment passed, it just didn't work, like most forms of prohibition.
Agreed; it became less popular over time, which is why support for it dropped to the point where people just basically ignored it. Or else it still wasn't popular enough to be sustained long-term. I agree that nationwide prohibitions are difficult to enforce without a widespread willingness to voluntarily abstain ... which is why my opinion will likely remain unpopular for a long time to come. Maybe if something like "synthehol" became a reality ...
Salmondaze wrote:
Ummm, if the "few" benefits (preventing heart disease being one of them, which, BTW is the number 1 killer of men in America. So few, maybe, but quality over quantity, I say) can be more easily obtained through diet and regular exercise then how come you see people who diet and exercise and touch not a drop of alcohol keel over and die of a heart attack every single day? Remember Jim Fixx? He published bestselling books about running, ate tofu, and swam from Japan to mainland Asia (figuratively speaking) every day. Died of... sure enough, heart attack. And you know what could have prevented that? If he pounded a fifth of hard liquor every day. Yeah, sounds like a joke I know, and liver damage is an issue, I know, but I'd MUCH rather be alive with a sh***y liver and good heart than dead with bad heart and good liver. And if you build tolerance then liver damage doesn't happen. Lemmy pounds a fifth per day and has a liver that is at 100%. Sure, alcohol has its problems if you're alcoholic or have a drinking problem, but you know what? I don't have a drinking problem AND I'm not alcoholic, and I know there are a lot of people out there like me. So why take away our rights and 20 or so years of our lives so that people who have a genetic predisposition can live with a little less peer pressure? It doesn't make sense.
Conversely, there are also people who are casual or social drinkers that die of heart attacks (like my grandfather) or liver cancer (like my grandmother). There are also people who regularly exercise and maintain a good diet while not drinking who do not die of heart attacks (or liver cancer). Nevertheless, the benefits of healthy diet + exercise, and of moderate alcohol consumption, are well known – as are the side-effects of intoxication.
I get what you're saying about the right to enjoy a drink, though, Rights are certainly valuable, even if they are invariably subject to the wishes of society and aren't always uniform: that's why alcohol is widely available and enjoyed in most countries, while recreational drugs are banned in most of them (with Portugal being a notable, and interesting, exception).
Personally, I think that you can have a great time without alcohol, and it would result in a lot less violence and anti-social behaviour. But would I impose such a belief on others? No, not without widespread support in society. Besides, a similar argument could be made against kitchen knives or (wait for it) guns. So I won't lose sleep if my opinion remains unpopular. There are always efforts to curb problem drinking worth supporting, as an alternative.
_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.
– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)