RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,972
|
Post by RedRock on Jun 24, 2007 8:40:58 GMT -5
True, but there are simply NO good points to alcohol, all humor aside, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by beer on Jun 24, 2007 8:50:34 GMT -5
No but there is something good about having the freedom to choose to drink or not. ;D
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,972
|
Post by RedRock on Jun 24, 2007 10:19:53 GMT -5
No but there is something good about having the freedom to choose to drink or not. ;D Agreed. BUT.... Moderation in drinking is defined medically as ONE drink a day (that's one 12-oz. 4% beer, one 4-oz. 12% wine glass, or one 1/2-oz. 50% (100 proof) shot of whiskey, or a mixed drink with those amounts of alcohol with any volume of a non-alcoholic drink). If you can choose to drink only one drink a day, I can agree with you. If you drink more, or if you HAVE to drink more than that for any perceived reason, alcohol abuse/alcoholism is a high risk. In addition, if you have ever had a hangover, you HAVE abused alcohol already. "The man takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, and then the drink takes the man." And by the way, lest anyone thinks I'm simply being "preachy," I view this as a medical, addiction, and sociological issue, not a religious one. |
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184 
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Jun 24, 2007 12:15:41 GMT -5
don't think your being "preachy" Red.. It is your right to abstain if you wish. Myself I have been known to knock back a few from time to time. Even though I have deserved a hang over in the past, I have never had one. I don't think the govt should have the right to tell us we cannot drink if we wish too. I do not agree with alcohol as a daily habit, but that is a personal choice. As such then we are responsible for our actions while drinking.
I do not take illegal drugs either however Im in favor of the lesser ones being made legal, before they were outlawed we did not have all the drug problems we have now. People will always want to do what is forbiden just for the sake of doing it. As we saw in the prohibition ERA of the the 20's, organized crime soared.
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,972
|
Post by RedRock on Jun 24, 2007 14:11:59 GMT -5
It is not a coherent argument to compare prohibition in the 20's with the possibility of it today and predict it would equally fail, due to the modern medical and sociologic knowledge of the effects of alcohol upon the liver, heart, central nervous system, individual, and society, and due to the capability of effective mass dissemination of information about that; the prevailing idea/information in the 20's was that some people are alcoholics but that it's ok "to knock back a few" anytime and anywhere. As I have learned in dealing with patients, whatever a person tells you he has consumed, double it and add in "a few" and you'll get close to the minimum of what he really has consumed. Compare smoking--the rate of new smokers has gone way down, and you don't see it in movies anymore to keep up the constant barrage of the implicit idea that "smoking is cool and won't hurt you."
The ability of law enforcement to regulate, investigate, and prosecute local and regional criminals then also does not even begin to compare with what it can do today, so the threat of "organized crime" soaring is not a valid argument, either. Where law enforcement will fail is where it now fails with mj and cocaine--the small time drug pusher/user who supplies a few friends on a regular basis, and he's supplied by a small dealer, too, etc.--we catch the major suppliers and shipments in good numbers, but it doesn't take many to get through, given the huge demand for the drugs, to supply a bunch of people and to make a lot of money for a lot of people.
No, I wouldn't legalize the "mild" drugs such as marijuana, either. While mj is a very mild hallucinogen, it does have long term significant effects upon metabolism, memory, personality, and behavior, and it is a proven "GATEWAY" drug--people who try mj will try other, harder drugs because of their relatively innocuous experiences with mj. Legalizing it would increase the problems with cocaine, ecstacy, etc.
And finally, just because it might be tough to achieve something such as outlawing alcoholic beverages, or to police those things already illegal, that does not make it ok to avoid doing what we know is right! "Oh, well, people are going to do X anyway, so why even try to stop/control it?" is a pure cop-out. Fill in the X with almost anything you know to be wrong, and you'll begin to see why our society is going down so fast: X = smoke, drink, have premarital sex, commit adultery, watch pornography, cheat, lie, steal, fight, kill each other, abandon their children and wives, get high, etc. You have to stand for something in this world, or you will fall for anything.
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Jun 24, 2007 14:35:26 GMT -5
No not a cop out. Before there were laws to say you can not do drugs and such. There was not the wide spread use of those drugs. Yes there were addicts and users but nothing like we have today. I agree that those substances are detrimental to the human body. But it is not the place of the govt. to tell people what they can and can not do with their own body. Neither should it be the govt. that picks up the tab for medical expense when people choose to use those substances and have ill effects from them. It is the govt. place to prosecute the people that harm others while using the drugs, and those penalties would need to be very harsh to be effective. If they MJ was grown and sold here legally, then it would cut out the smuggling, tons of gang income and activity. Not to mention the money form some of the drug sales is finding its way into terrorists pocket books. I agree with the statement. Just cause something is not easy to do does not mean we should not do it. But in reality what is the feasibility that it would be effective? What would be the cost? Would our taxes sky rocket to pay for that enforcement? This is a cold hearted idea, but possible very true. The true hardcore addicts would soon OD or die of related complications. I wish there were stats from the old days when there were no laws prohibiting the use and sale of such drugs. Then we could compare the numbers to what we have now. I do not see your point about the 20's prohibition argument being coherent. It would create a black market for booze the same as it did then, and as we have for the drugs right now. Those that ignore history's lessons are doomed to repeat them. EDIT: here is a link to wikipedia with some info on the history and failure of prohibition. Though it is not a definitive source, it does have some good info. tinyurl.com/245aky |
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,972
|
Post by RedRock on Jun 24, 2007 14:39:24 GMT -5
......I do disagree with your comment that old enough to fight does not equal the right to vote. It is not a siilly argument at all. I certainly would not tell our young people to do the responsible thing and fight for their nation and follow it up with you can't vote as you are not mature enough. And yet, the fact is, they are NOT mature enough to vote. Oh, sure, they can fill in an oval with a pencil, or push a button on a box or a touchsreen, but they can't make informed decisions at that age as a general rule. Ask a whole bunch of teens and even early 20's you know some simple questions and see what answers you get: who is the secretary of state? who are your US senators? who is your local school board president? what is the bill of rights? what do the first and second amendments to the US Constitution say? what is the effect upon the economy of increasing taxes? where in the US constitution does it say you have a right to an abortion, or free medical care, or subsidized housing? what is the basic premise of the theory of evolution? how much CO2 does a volcano put out compared to humans? how many medical cures have been found from research with human EMBRYO stem cells? what rich actress is in the LA county jail now for drunk driving? who is J. Lo dating now? what is the price of a song on iTunes? what was the name of the terrible asian singer on "American Idol?" who is the bald-headed comedian who hosts "Deal or No Deal?" Did Clinton wear boxers or briefs? Etc. Which do you think they know the answers to? Hmmmmm? Which ones help them decide who should be the county school board or US president, or if the income tax should be increased on people in NYC making $ 100,000, or if prisoners on death row should be allowed liver transplants at taxpayer expense? In contrast, being a soldier is relatively easy for an 18 yr. old to do. Follow orders, do what you're told, learn these basic things which don't require a lot of logic, shoot the other guy before he shoots you, etc. Ages to do anything are totally arbitrary! Why 18 to vote? Why not 17? Why not 19? Why not 15.5? Yep, you might die as a soldier, but you'll more likely die on the roads in your automobile, along with about 49,999 of your fellow countrymen each year, but you can do that with your license at 15.5 years in most states. Old enough to die=old enough to vote? No, teens and young 20's just don't have the education, knowledge, life experience, or wisdom to be voting, and they DO NOT DESERVE IT merely for the reason of having survived 18 years of life. They are idiots for the most part, and their stupid, emotional, underinformed ballot choices (which are really what they think they are SUPPOSED to be choose based on what the mainstream liberal media are telling them is cool, fair, just, reasonable, etc.) hurt us all. It IS a silly argument--die for your country=vote for it. |
|
|
|
Post by beer on Jun 24, 2007 15:27:00 GMT -5
OOH OOH!!! I KNOW!!!! William Hung!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Jun 24, 2007 15:35:17 GMT -5
......I do disagree with your comment that old enough to fight does not equal the right to vote. It is not a siilly argument at all. I certainly would not tell our young people to do the responsible thing and fight for their nation and follow it up with you can't vote as you are not mature enough. And yet, the fact is, they are NOT mature enough to vote. Oh, sure, they can fill in an oval with a pencil, or push a button on a box or a touchsreen, but they can't make informed decisions at that age as a general rule. Ask a whole bunch of teens and even early 20's you know some simple questions and see what answers you get: who is the secretary of state? who are your US senators? who is your local school board president? what is the bill of rights? what do the first and second amendments to the US Constitution say? what is the effect upon the economy of increasing taxes? where in the US constitution does it say you have a right to an abortion, or free medical care, or subsidized housing? what is the basic premise of the theory of evolution? how much CO2 does a volcano put out compared to humans? how many medical cures have been found from research with human EMBRYO stem cells? what rich actress is in the LA county jail now for drunk driving? who is J. Lo dating now? what is the price of a song on iTunes? what was the name of the terrible asian singer on "American Idol?" who is the bald-headed comedian who hosts "Deal or No Deal?" Did Clinton wear boxers or briefs? Etc. Which do you think they know the answers to? Hmmmmm? Which ones help them decide who should be the county school board or US president, or if the income tax should be increased on people in NYC making $ 100,000, or if prisoners on death row should be allowed liver transplants at taxpayer expense? In contrast, being a soldier is relatively easy for an 18 yr. old to do. Follow orders, do what you're told, learn these basic things which don't require a lot of logic, shoot the other guy before he shoots you, etc. Ages to do anything are totally arbitrary! Why 18 to vote? Why not 17? Why not 19? Why not 15.5? Yep, you might die as a soldier, but you'll more likely die on the roads in your automobile, along with about 49,999 of your fellow countrymen each year, but you can do that with your license at 15.5 years in most states. Old enough to die=old enough to vote? No, teens and young 20's just don't have the education, knowledge, life experience, or wisdom to be voting, and they DO NOT DESERVE IT merely for the reason of having survived 18 years of life. They are idiots for the most part, and their stupid, emotional, underinformed ballot choices (which are really what they think they are SUPPOSED to be choose based on what the mainstream liberal media are telling them is cool, fair, just, reasonable, etc.) hurt us all. It IS a silly argument--die for your country=vote for it. You are wrong  Even IF I agreed with your arguments, which I don't... your own words fail you. You speak of how America's youth are so pooly informed. Well, the truth is they are really no less informed than ANY age group in America. And if youth are able to make acceptable soliders, they must then also be mature, dedicated, or any other positive trait necessary to be one. So which is it... are they idiots or are they great soldiiers becasue frankly they cannot be both? |
|
|
|
Post by beer on Jun 24, 2007 16:10:12 GMT -5
Well spoken Vince! I think I'll go have a beer now. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by WidowMaker on Jun 24, 2007 16:23:25 GMT -5
Thank God! there are people that will fight for our country..If there were none we would not be sitting in the comfort of our home on a computer debating about in a gaming forum...
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Jun 24, 2007 16:24:33 GMT -5
lol that is so very true Widow. I cant find a thing about it to disagree with ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by michiganmilitia on Jun 24, 2007 17:49:11 GMT -5
Two things. First, my stance on Government: The government should be big enough to fulfill its purpose and no bigger. The job of the government is not to play "big brother" and keep us from doing harmful things (seatbelt laws, smoking bans, drug bans, etc). The government most certainly should not be taxing me to pay for someone else's laziness (welfare abusers? social security program?) I'll never see any of that money back and I paid over $1000 into these failing programs since last Christmas. Even when I was 15, I was paying into these systems. Then what SHOULD the government be doing? How about Establishing Justice (Court system), Insuring Domestic Tranquility (police), Providing for the Common Defense (national guard), Promoting the General Welfare (this doesn't mean creating an endless supply of social programs to support the lazy) and Securing the Blessings of Liberty (fighting in Iraq to "Secure our Blessings of Liberty") These things are why America formed as a nation. These are the reasons the founding fathers formed a new government and those are the tasks it was intended to fulfill. The government wasn't created to stop speeding carriages or to ban gun ownership. Point being: Our government is about 1000 times larger than it should be. There should be a court system, a police system, a national defense system, a closely monitored welfare system to TEMPORARILY help those in need, and the necessary objects to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty". Nothing more. Every new law adds restrictions to our Liberty that we continue to fight so hard for. I have never seen or heard of a law that gave people MORE freedom (unless it was counteracting a pre-existing law). Less laws = More freedom = Happy me Item number two on the agenda: No, teens and young 20's just don't have the education, knowledge, life experience, or wisdom to be voting, and they DO NOT DESERVE IT merely for the reason of having survived 18 years of life. They are idiots for the most part, and their stupid, emotional, underinformed ballot choices... As a 20 year old, I should be offended. Instead I couldn't agree more. I was just in the public school system a year ago and the general consensus has left a deep imprint in my mind. About 80% of teenagers do not understand politics very well and don't care either. I'm proud to be able to vote in the next presidential election for the first time in 2008. I'm also concerned to know that many of my classmates will have the same opportunity -- many of those same kids that didn't care about politics in high school. There's an old saying that goes something like this: "There is no such thing as a wise, old liberal." Simply because once people get a hold of themselves and settle down to begin living their real life, the "revolutionary" and "progressive" thinking becomes impractical. And if you are old and still liberal, I wouldn't call you wise.  |
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Jun 24, 2007 18:01:33 GMT -5
No, teens and young 20's just don't have the education, knowledge, life experience, or wisdom to be voting, and they DO NOT DESERVE IT merely for the reason of having survived 18 years of life. They are idiots for the most part, and their stupid, emotional, underinformed ballot choices... As a 20 year old, I should be offended. Instead I couldn't agree more. I was just in the public school system a year ago and the general consensus has left a deep imprint in my mind. About 80% of teenagers do not understand politics very well and don't care either. I'm proud to be able to vote in the next presidential election for the first time in 2008. I'm also concerned to know that many of my classmates will have the same opportunity -- many of those same kids that didn't care about politics in high school. There's an old saying that goes something like this: "There is no such thing as a wise, old liberal." Simply because once people get a hold of themselves and settle down to begin living their real life, the "revolutionary" and "progressive" thinking becomes impractical. And if you are old and still liberal, I wouldn't call you wise. MM... I once thought EXACTLY the way you do now... with age, experience, & wisdom you may change your thinking as I did. You also may not. The important thing to know that BOTH points of view are perfectly valid and acceptable in this country. You are correct that too many youth in America are uninformed. But you MUST admit that the same percentage of adults in this country are in that same boat. I am also PROUD that you plan to vote in 2008. Make damn sure you vote in ALL local elections as well as that is your privilege to enjoy as I do. |
|
|
|
Post by michiganmilitia on Jun 24, 2007 18:13:51 GMT -5
I already am signed up for an absentee ballot (And I edited my earlier post to include a bunch more about governmental philosophy.) |
|
Even IF I agreed with your arguments, which I don't... your own words fail you. You speak of how America's youth are so pooly informed. Well, the truth is they are really no less informed than ANY age group in America. And if youth are able to make acceptable soliders, they must then also be mature, dedicated, or any other positive trait necessary to be one. So which is it... are they idiots or are they great soldiiers becasue frankly they cannot be both?
