555 said...Jimmyz said...TonyC said...
Should also ban alcohol - the health and other costs of alcohol use on our society are far greater than anything.
As with all rational decisions its cost vs. benefit, just because it has a high cost doesn't immediately make it undesirable.
What are the benefits of alcohol then?
Family violence, drink driving, public disorderliness, unplanned sex/pregnancies, fetal-alcohol syndrome, pickled livers, impaired judgment, loss of productive time, hangovers.. Nope.. surely those can't be what you're thinking of?
I enjoy a beer after sailing as much as the next guy, but I could easily go without if it meant an end to the negative social side effects of excessive consumption.
I'm with Tony on this one - but again, the govt makes too much money from the excise tax..
Bit aggressive there
No.. because they'd be called costs?
The benefit of alcohol is simply what you said; it is for enjoyment, just because the benefits may be immeasurable by anything other than subjective means, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Of course I'm not denying that there are negatives to alcohol, however there does exist a difference between alcohol and smoking in that lighting up in a crowded area will unquestionably impose directly health and irritation costs on everyone around; being the rationale behind the ban.
Alcohol 'fueled' violence as well as many of the negatives you put forward are avoidable either through abstinence or moderation. I'm not a fan of regulation based on the 'lowest common denominator', rather toughen up on selling of alcohol to already intoxicated individuals etc... doesn't need to banned because some people can't control themselves, just make them accountable for what they do and they can make the choice as to whether it was worth it or not.
The flaw in what you're saying is that in forgoing your beer, which I assume you drink responsibly you are effectively giving up your own pleasure (the positive), for NO BENEFIT TO SOCIETY WHATSOEVER, (unless you are a cause of one of those negatives you pointed out). So effectively in blanket banning alcohol, although it would end all these problems caused by so few(or for half of them would it really??!!) it would also result in the vast majority having to forgo something which would actually be seen as a beneficial activity.
Sure you might argue that the costs are so grave in comparison to the benefits, but think numerically how many of us go around on alcohol fueled rampages etc? vs. those who can enjoy responsibly. Very few.
Implying that the govt. making an excise on the sale of alcohol being the reason it is sold is absurd. It's essentially an attempt to distribute the costs to society on a pro rata basis, identical to the excise on petrol, neither of which fully compensate for the problems they cause... where the responsible pay for the irresponsible, illustrating once again the flaw in 'blanket' regulation.
Unfortunately the normal trend is that society feels the need to 'save' few idiots at the far greater collective expense of many responsible people. I think a very rational idea would be 'chlorinating our gene pool', or at least rooting out the idiots legally... until I rule the world that is
.
)
