Page 1 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

21 Dec 2010, 9:35 pm

I understand that drinking and driving is illegal in all (most if not all) countries. The idea is that your judgement and reaction time is impaired. However, why is drunkenness itself not illegal? Like if you commit a crime while you're drunk or you become violent, you can be charged with the crime but not the drunkenness itself. However, the drunkenness CAUSED you to be more likely to commit the crime. An analogy is that speeding CAUSES you to be more likely to crash your car and so speeding comes with penalties (although minor ones are civil offences not criminal) and so why is drunkenness itself not a crime? You can't say to the cops "but I didn't crash my car now did I?" The act of speeding ITSELF is enough to charge you with the ticket.

Now, is it because our society has tolerated the use of alcohol as a method for inhibition? I mean, it would be difficult to make such a law since most people do it regularly (at least certain age groups). Why are some drugs illegal but not alcohol? Binge drinking probably cause just as much harm to your body. Like drugs, alcohol can ruin a persons life if the consumption is abused.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

21 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm

I think many muncipalities have laws against public drunkness. As for why private drunkness isn't illegal itself, I think it'd have something to do with the whole "influences don't equate causes, you are responsible" ethos that the ideology of Free Will mandates. Namely, drunkness may *influence* you to do stupid things, but it's *ultimately* "you" that caused those stupid things to happen. It's also based on the notion that not all private drunkness leads to detrimental consequences if sufficient precautions are taken while one is sobre.

EDITED


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Last edited by Master_Pedant on 21 Dec 2010, 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

21 Dec 2010, 9:46 pm

Why should a state that you'll theoretically do wrong immediately be listed as wrong? How many innocent drunken people will you end up persecuting in the process? Would even 1 be too man?


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,581
Location: Seattle-ish

21 Dec 2010, 10:03 pm

Let's not forget that we tried this once in the states, leading to such horrors as the rise of both organized crime and the Kennedy family (but I repeat myself).


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

21 Dec 2010, 10:04 pm

Dox47 wrote:
leading to such horrors as


The exact same horrors that the prohibition of every other illicit substance has brought us.


I know you know but I really want to drill this point home at every single opportunity possible because it's so absolutely absurd that people can't comprehend how people can end up reacting psychologically the same to certain concepts such as prohibition.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

21 Dec 2010, 10:23 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Why should a state that you'll theoretically do wrong immediately be listed as wrong? How many innocent drunken people will you end up persecuting in the process? Would even 1 be too man?

Well, you can argue that speeding in itself is not "wrong" and it does not harm anyone. It can be argued that speeders are "innocent" as the VAST MAJORITY of speeders only want to get to their destination sooner and has ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION in harming themselves and others on the road.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

21 Dec 2010, 10:40 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
leading to such horrors as


The exact same horrors that the prohibition of every other illicit substance has brought us.


I know you know but I really want to drill this point home at every single opportunity possible because it's so absolutely absurd that people can't comprehend how people can end up reacting psychologically the same to certain concepts such as prohibition.
Slghtly OT: I chuckled everytime I've read a cable from the US embassy saying that drug traffickers are financing some of the corrupt leaders that are opposed to US.

Mostly because, who finances drug dealers? Obviously the countries like the US that have made these things illegal and allowed drug dealers to profit amazingly thanks to the artificial scarcity. (And also US consumption)

So, in a way, US is financing these corrupt governments.

For anyone who thinks that making drugs legal would make things easier for the criminals, just think: How many gangs do you know off that profit selling beer? Nobody! Because beer is actually cheap to produce and to sell once there is no artifical scarcity against it. If drugs were legal, selling them would be so easy that it would become as profitable as any normal job. Mobster criminals want things the easy way so they wouldn't like to waste their time doing real work...


_________________
.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Dec 2010, 11:05 pm

In some municipalities public drunkeness is illegal and in most states driving while drunk is illegal.

ruveyn



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

21 Dec 2010, 11:17 pm

The funny thing about alcohol prohibition in the US is that it was the only constitutional drug law we've ever had.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

22 Dec 2010, 12:40 am

jc6chan wrote:
I understand that drinking and driving is illegal in all (most if not all) countries. The idea is that your judgement and reaction time is impaired. However, why is drunkenness itself not illegal? Like if you commit a crime while you're drunk or you become violent, you can be charged with the crime but not the drunkenness itself. However, the drunkenness CAUSED you to be more likely to commit the crime. An analogy is that speeding CAUSES you to be more likely to crash your car and so speeding comes with penalties (although minor ones are civil offences not criminal) and so why is drunkenness itself not a crime? You can't say to the cops "but I didn't crash my car now did I?" The act of speeding ITSELF is enough to charge you with the ticket.

Now, is it because our society has tolerated the use of alcohol as a method for inhibition? I mean, it would be difficult to make such a law since most people do it regularly (at least certain age groups). Why are some drugs illegal but not alcohol? Binge drinking probably cause just as much harm to your body. Like drugs, alcohol can ruin a persons life if the consumption is abused.
You're the same guy who was saying sites should be banned because they encourage dudes to cheat. I find your views absolutely ridiculous and I sure as hell wouldn't feel welcome in your ideal society where the government is babysitting everyone. I do agree alcohol can be as harmful as hard drugs, but should the government babysit us and rob us of personal responsibility? f**k no.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Dec 2010, 4:34 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
I think many muncipalities have laws against public drunkness. As for why private drunkness isn't illegal itself, I think it'd have something to do with the whole "influences don't equate causes, you are responsible" ethos that the ideology of Free Will mandates. Namely, drunkness may *influence* you to do stupid things, but it's *ultimately* "you" that caused those stupid things to happen. It's also based on the notion that not all private drunkness leads to detrimental consequences if sufficient precautions are taken while one is sobre.

EDITED


What you do to yourself at home while not being an immediate hazard to other people is your own business. If you think being drunk per se should be illegal, what about over eating or under exercising. These cost the United States tens of billions of dollars each year in medical costs and lost productivity. A puritan approach to regulating behavior will soon lead to tyranny and dictatorship. And the tyrants will torment you for your own good.

ruveyn



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

22 Dec 2010, 6:28 am

It would be your choice to become drunk. Your stupidity therefore would have caused whatever crime you may have committed while drunk.

Unfortunately, stupidity isn't a crime yet either, but there is a country where it's illegal to have sex if you're stupid - don't quote me on that, though, I just heard it on a radio show ages ago :P



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

22 Dec 2010, 7:40 am

For practical purposes being drunk is illeagle.
As you said: driving drunk is illeagle, and in most juristictions public drunkeness is illeagle.
You cant walk down the street staggering and you cant drive drunk, so in what other situation would the law be enforceable?
Unless you want an anti-drunkeness gestapo to storm people's homes to see if they are drunk in front of their own tv sets there is no other setting in which any law against drunkeness would be either enforceable or relevent.


You could ban alchol itsself. But they tried that and it didnt work.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Dec 2010, 12:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
What you do to yourself at home while not being an immediate hazard to other people is your own business. If you think being drunk per se should be illegal, what about over eating or under exercising. These cost the United States tens of billions of dollars each year in medical costs and lost productivity. A puritan approach to regulating behavior will soon lead to tyranny and dictatorship. And the tyrants will torment you for your own good.

ruveyn


Where did I say drunkness ought to be illegal?


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

22 Dec 2010, 12:28 pm

jc6chan wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Why should a state that you'll theoretically do wrong immediately be listed as wrong? How many innocent drunken people will you end up persecuting in the process? Would even 1 be too man?

Well, you can argue that speeding in itself is not "wrong" and it does not harm anyone. It can be argued that speeders are "innocent" as the VAST MAJORITY of speeders only want to get to their destination sooner and has ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION in harming themselves and others on the road.


Actually...if I can find the study...there's a study that says that most drivers drive at the rate that they're most comfortable at, not necessarily what the speed limit is. For me, for example, on most decent flow streets (not side streets) I normally go around 40-50 MPH even though the speed limit is 35MPH.

http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleas ... 41009.html

^Not sure if that's the study I was thinking of but it comes to the same conclusion.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

22 Dec 2010, 12:42 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
I understand that drinking and driving is illegal in all (most if not all) countries. The idea is that your judgement and reaction time is impaired. However, why is drunkenness itself not illegal? Like if you commit a crime while you're drunk or you become violent, you can be charged with the crime but not the drunkenness itself. However, the drunkenness CAUSED you to be more likely to commit the crime. An analogy is that speeding CAUSES you to be more likely to crash your car and so speeding comes with penalties (although minor ones are civil offences not criminal) and so why is drunkenness itself not a crime? You can't say to the cops "but I didn't crash my car now did I?" The act of speeding ITSELF is enough to charge you with the ticket.

Now, is it because our society has tolerated the use of alcohol as a method for inhibition? I mean, it would be difficult to make such a law since most people do it regularly (at least certain age groups). Why are some drugs illegal but not alcohol? Binge drinking probably cause just as much harm to your body. Like drugs, alcohol can ruin a persons life if the consumption is abused.
You're the same guy who was saying sites should be banned because they encourage dudes to cheat. I find your views absolutely ridiculous and I sure as hell wouldn't feel welcome in your ideal society where the government is babysitting everyone. I do agree alcohol can be as harmful as hard drugs, but should the government babysit us and rob us of personal responsibility? f**k no.

Well, would you consider police giving out speeding tickets to be babysitting? Would police arresting drunk drivers (even though they did not crash the car) be babysitting? And so I guess you believe that all drugs should be legal for possession and consumption? Man, if you think my ideal society sucks, then go to a Muslim country and come back to my ideal society and you will see that its not that bad.