So basically you don't think that Alcohol is beneficial to society, and therefore you think it's best if nobody has the option of consuming it. And you term that as progessive.
I think society would beg to disagree.
do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
who's going to make the violins?
who are you agreeing or disagreeing with Spark?
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
This is a pretty up and down case of civil liberties here. There is a huge logical gap between 'preventing binge drinking' and 'banning alcohol'.
Because all people who drink alcohol end up on the streets, of course.
And all people who eat food end up morbidly obese too.
A progressive society is one that doesn't try to impose any one group's set of morals and values over everyone's for no good reason, rather letting everyone do their own thing. Unless you have hard, solid evidence that banning alcohol has a significant net benefit for society - for which there is none, quite the opposite in fact - then trying to curb people's freedoms (yes, freedoms) in this way is reactionary to a T.
Last edited by Spark; 21-08-2012 at 07:36 AM.
What, you mean apart from the blatantly obvious one where it was actually tried in full?
But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that hardline cracking and limiting substances actually does very little in the way of limiting substance abuse (and occasionally makes it worse). Civil education is an infinitely better option if you want to stop binge drinking - but, of course, I'm sure the moral police will be happy.
It costs the NHS 3 billion a year to treat alcohol related illnesses and injuries.
And it was taken very seriously in the US wasn't it when they tried it?
It was, and it backfired spectacularly.
So it's worthwhile curbing civil liberties in the name of saving money.It costs the NHS 3 billion a year to treat alcohol related illnesses and injuries.
But anyway, I am not advocating the banning of alcohol, since it is against civil liberties and there would be major problems associated with it. My point was that overall, in terms of a cost/benefit alcohol is not good for society.
But that goes to the very heart of the matter - permitting its usage is a civil liberty. Civil liberties are at the heart of a progressive society.
Within reason - laws against public drunkenness and education against binge drinking etc - me buying a few drinks to have with my mates should be perfectly legitimate and none of anyone else's ****ing business, more to the point.
By the way, I’m sure you’d agree that banning alcohol doesn’t get rid of the “problem”. It just forces it to go underground. Even in Pakistan underground rave parties are common and alcohol is frequently consumed. I would rather that instead of people buying alcohol from suspect buyers (which also gives rise to the mafia that controls the sale of these beverages), the alcohol be legally sold for safety reasons. If you and I don’t drink alcohol, we don’t have to buy it. My whole point is that I long for the days of a tolerant and secular Pakistan. It existed once, there is no reason to believe it can’t exist again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)