View Poll Results: Should we propose further alcohol control?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 11.76%
  • No

    23 67.65%
  • Other

    7 20.59%
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 178

Thread: Time for Alcohol Control?

  1. #161
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    398

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Both are dangerous, one more than the other, but, IMO, this matters not.
    To do nothing, out of fear of the alcohol lobby or the NRA, is criminal.
    In PA we have our state stores and our police....this is our control.
    But, we need 100% gun control...NOT with loopholes large enough for the Queen Elizabeth to sail thru..
    Its a poor/weak argument when natural disasters are introduced...Lets limit this to things that can be controlled, alcohol and guns.
    We have lawmakers, I think.
    There job is to make laws as necessary.
    The naturals disaster proponent was only introduced to show that intent vs accident has a more severe psychological effect. It is not an argument. We also have gun control in PA (I live here too). If you buy a handgun, they call in your DL number and likely, you can take the gun with you, but it is a check. Also, you need to apply for your conceal permit at your sherriff's office and they must give it to you unless they have reason not to. Similarly, they must give you the alcohol in PA unless they have reason not to, i.e. visibly intoxicated and they limit the amount of beer you can buy from a bar, etc. There are regulations on both.

    The question is, with alcohol being the more damaging to society (in that it kills more people per capita of drinkers than gun owners), why are you insisting on more gun regulation, but not more alcohol regulation? What is the difference?

  2. #162
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Well, we're going to disagree.
    What you think is "good" legislation, I do not.


    I don't know what you're getting at with KKK rallies or whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
    Good gun legislation is the prohibition of the mentally insane from gun ownership (back ground checks).
    These are at 60% today, should be at 99%.
    Guns are dangerous are they not ?
    Thus we need a data base for every single gun owner....we have this for automobiles now..
    Families , communities.....this requires thinking. Imagine a KKK rally being held in Harlem or Watts, or in Goldsboro ...Fights would occur, I'd be involved....Beating my own drum....when it gets so close to home, I do care.
    The trouble is, so few do, and we bring woe unto ourselves....and our children..
    As for those who "think" we can do nothing ...that our "freedoms and liberties" are more important......selfish is applicable.

  3. #163
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    398

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Good gun legislation is the prohibition of the mentally insane from gun ownership (back ground checks).
    These are at 60% today, should be at 99%.
    Guns are dangerous are they not ?
    Thus we need a data base for every single gun owner....we have this for automobiles now..
    Families , communities.....this requires thinking. Imagine a KKK rally being held in Harlem or Watts, or in Goldsboro ...Fights would occur, I'd be involved....Beating my own drum....when it gets so close to home, I do care.
    The trouble is, so few do, and we bring woe unto ourselves....and our children..
    As for those who "think" we can do nothing ...that our "freedoms and liberties" are more important......selfish is applicable.
    ^now we're to the crux of the argument. It cost lives to live in the society that we do. We believe people should have the privilege to drive, though it causes deaths. We believe people ought to have the privilege to drink, though it causes death. The list is nearly infinite.

    We believe in many freedoms/privileges not spelled out in the constitution that cause death in our society. To regulate each one that causes death would be insane. So we must regulate the ones that are most damaging to society. Either by making them entirely illegal, see Heroin, or by regulating them: see guns, driving, etc..

    The point of this thread is that there are societal privileges that we accept that are more damaging, causes more deaths, that we are willing to continue in order to maintain our current society. We obviously cannot and should not regulate everything that causes deaths. If we start regulating the things that are less damaging, we give up our ground for arguing against regulation on things that are more damaging, such as alcohol.

  4. #164
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Holy ****ing wall of text, you've got me on several points and I can't really defend many(or rather any) of them.
    For that, I hate you.

    I'll just get to the stuff I may have a quibble with.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's what McDonald v. Chicago ended, actually. That decision ended such ban in Chicago by incorporating the 2nd to the states.

    Therein lies the crux of the debate: Does the Bill of Rights exist to limit federal authority (as it claims in the preamble to the Bill of rights and as the history books tell us it was created to do in reaction ot the federalist/anti-federalist papers) or does it exist to exert the supreme authority of the Federal Government over the states in an effort to preserve individual rights?

    History tells us it was created to be the former: a restriction on the federal government.

    Exactly. In order to reinterpret the constitution to support their position, they had to usurp state's rights.

    Not really. If we look at things fully systemically, and include all of the effects that guns and alcohol have and have had, it's pretty much neck and neck. They both have many positives too, but people don't like to think of those. Alcohol sales helped build this country. But without guns (especially improved technology of guns as compared to the weapons others used against us), it never could have existed or survived.

    So do I, that's why I bring up the federal vs. state thing. But remember, it's important to make sure you are corect in noting a contradiction. This requires one to use accurate equivalencies and premises, rather than assumed ones. More on that later.
    I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights, was both a restriction on federal and state governments.
    With the supremacy doctrine and the 10th amendment, settling that out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's a strawman, though. Nobody is actually making the claim that alcohol related deaths are acceptable. People support restrictions on the sale of alcohol and regulation of alcohol. Few people call for an outright ban, though. Many people who support gun control would also be on board with alcohol restrictions that they believe would save lives as opposed to the one's you presented to look similar to proposed gun restrictions. For example, mandatory ignition locks for vehicles calibrated to prevent cars from starting of the driver blows above the legal limit of .08, for example. Others might wish to see the legal limit lowered further still, even to the point of a zero tolerance law for drinking and driving.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Trying to mimic the proposed gun control laws (as you have done in this thread) is sheer folly, because alcohol's dangers are not even remotely similar to those presented by firearms. This means you aren't even testing what you wish to test: people's consistency on regulating societal dangers. Even someone who would support increased restrictions on alcohol would look at your proposals as absurd because your proposals were not designed to save lives from the dangers of alcohol, instead they were designed to look similar to the proposed restrictions on guns.

    Your proposals are irrational, not simply because they won't work to achieve the "desired goal", but because they were designed with an entirely different goal in mind.
    I actually think a background check, to see if the purchaser had priors (DUI, Domestic violence while intoxicated, etc.), would reduce availability of alcohol, to those who are irresponsible.
    And it's entirely possible that limiting the quantity of alcohol one can purchase, as well as the alcohol content, could also reduce the amount of people who commit DUI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That is not an existing premise for gun control, though. The problem here is the same as what happened in the first few quotes of this post: you aren't arguing against statements which are actually made. You are arguing against imaginary statements.
    Actually I designed it based on the comments other made in the gun control thread.

    If the intent of people is to save lives (the common comment in gun control threads), then they should have no issue further regulating alcohol to reduces lives lost, as a result of irresponsible drinkers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    But equivalencies between proposed gun restrictions and proposed alcohol-related restrictions do exist (the key here is to use real proposals for both that have similarities). The thread can be salvaged by making accurate equivalencies. For example, if you had used the proposal to make owner-specific trigger locks mandatory and compared it to breathalyzer ignition locks, you would have been spot on. If someone supports the trigger locks in order to prevent unnecessary deaths, they would need to support the ignition locks in order to be consistent in their desire to prevent unnecessary deaths. If they support trigger locks in order to prevent crime-related deaths (stolen guns, for example), the same goal is achieved with ignition locks (DUI manslaughter). I can't really think of a premise which supports one restriction but not the other (although that does not mean that one doesn't exist).

    The point I'm making is that in order to test consistency, you have to have real equivalencies that are dependent on real premises that people employ (rather than the premises you imagine they must employ). The argument you have presented here does not do this.
    I think, at the very least, the background check carries water.
    One can check the background of someone who is a serial violator of laws, in relations to alcohol.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #165
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Good gun legislation is the prohibition of the mentally insane from gun ownership (back ground checks).
    That's fine.
    No argument from me.

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    These are at 60% today, should be at 99%.
    Guns are dangerous are they not ?
    Thus we need a data base for every single gun owner....we have this for automobiles now..
    We already have informal registration, I'm trying to figure out what this would solve?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Families , communities.....this requires thinking. Imagine a KKK rally being held in Harlem or Watts, or in Goldsboro ...Fights would occur, I'd be involved....Beating my own drum....when it gets so close to home, I do care.
    The trouble is, so few do, and we bring woe unto ourselves....and our children..
    As for those who "think" we can do nothing ...that our "freedoms and liberties" are more important......selfish is applicable.
    Sorry, but people are allowed to be selfish with their supposed "rights."
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertzz View Post
    The naturals disaster proponent was only introduced to show that intent vs accident has a more severe psychological effect. It is not an argument. We also have gun control in PA (I live here too). If you buy a handgun, they call in your DL number and likely, you can take the gun with you, but it is a check. Also, you need to apply for your conceal permit at your sheriff's office and they must give it to you unless they have reason not to. Similarly, they must give you the alcohol in PA unless they have reason not to, i.e. visibly intoxicated and they limit the amount of beer you can buy from a bar, etc. There are regulations on both.

    The question is, with alcohol being the more damaging to society (in that it kills more people per capita of drinkers than gun owners), why are you insisting on more gun regulation, but not more alcohol regulation? What is the difference?
    Perhaps in PA we have quite good controls on both..
    I am neither a drinker nor an owner....good thing too....
    Intent.....accident.....yes, I'll buy the difference.....dead is dead.....but is it necessary ?
    We can escape (usually ) the bolt of lightening and the deadly snake bite (99% of the time)
    But the drunk driver or the stray bullet .....not so easy.
    Regulations are easy to overcome...thus more must be done..
    So, in truth, both are dangerous, lets at least work on one.
    Were the murdered children victims of alcohol or guns ?
    Or, were they victims of an uncaring society ?
    We cannot do everything...some things are impossible to work on....Such as man's attitudes....or his fears.
    But we can have our state stores for alcohol and 99% background check for gun owners.
    Or we can do away with the government and return to the "king of the hill" society.

  7. #167
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    398

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Perhaps in PA we have quite good controls on both..
    I am neither a drinker nor an owner....good thing too....
    Intent.....accident.....yes, I'll buy the difference.....dead is dead.....but is it necessary ?
    We can escape (usually ) the bolt of lightening and the deadly snake bite (99% of the time)
    But the drunk driver or the stray bullet .....not so easy.
    Regulations are easy to overcome...thus more must be done..
    So, in truth, both are dangerous, lets at least work on one.
    Were the murdered children victims of alcohol or guns ?
    Or, were they victims of an uncaring society ?
    We cannot do everything...some things are impossible to work on....Such as man's attitudes....or his fears.
    But we can have our state stores for alcohol and 99% background check for gun owners.
    Or we can do away with the government and return to the "king of the hill" society.

    I'm not such an extremist to do away with government, no. I believe we both agree that there is a cost of human lives to live in our current society to have the privileges that we do (otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive, intoxicated or not). It's not a matter of total control or no control for either of us I believe. Instead, it's a matter of how much control and how much are we willing to pay in terms of lives that it cost to live in our society.

    I am very glad that you concede that both need to be regulated more (both being alcohol and guns). Though I disagree completely, an inconsistency in logic occurs if you support one and not the other. If you support both and I support neither, it means only that either 1) I'm willing to accept more lives as the cost of our way of life or 2) I legitimately believe that more regulations would cause more lives lost.

    Regardless we both are willing to accept some cost. It's just a difference in what that cost should be and which regulations actually lower those costs.

  8. #168
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    There should be some exceptions to the rule. For instance one should declare that the beverages are for a party, marriage festival, 4th June/17th February, etc, and get to buy more than usual. Also restaurants suppliers should also be allowed to be issued more than usual drinks since it is for the restaurants.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  9. #169
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Holy ****ing wall of text, you've got me on several points and I can't really defend many(or rather any) of them.
    For that, I hate you.
    I was channeling Zyph.



    I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights, was both a restriction on federal and state governments.
    With the supremacy doctrine and the 10th amendment, settling that out.
    Not originally. Early Supreme court rulings stated otherwise, and the pre-amble of the bill of rights clerly indicates that it was designed ot be a limitation of federal authority over the states. Plus, the Bill of Rights came into existence because of fears that were brought up by anti-federalists over the expansion of federal authority presented by the unammended constitution (thus threatening ratification).






    I actually think a background check, to see if the purchaser had priors (DUI, Domestic violence while intoxicated, etc.), would reduce availability of alcohol, to those who are irresponsible.
    That would only create underground alcohol sales, probably by the same people who currently sell drugs. There's a high correlation between increased irresponsibility while intoxicated and alcoholism.


    And it's entirely possible that limiting the quantity of alcohol one can purchase, as well as the alcohol content, could also reduce the amount of people who commit DUI.
    This is actually in effect in many places, but not enforced adequately, either. I could see increasing the punishments for over-serving as being an equivalent comparison to some proposed gun regulations.

    Limiting alcohol content, or at least serving size of higher alcohol content, is possible at the local level, unlike many proposed gun regulations of a similar nature, which would need to be put in place federally to really be possible due to the Mcdonald v. Chicago ruling.

    That being said, neither approach would be nearly as effective at preventing DUI as mandatory ignition locks in all vehicles would be, though. Since that fits so well with real proposals for gun regulations, I think it works better for comparative purposes.

    Actually I designed it based on the comments other made in the gun control thread.
    But you tweaked it a bit to match the alcohol argument better, no?

    If the intent of people is to save lives (the common comment in gun control threads), then they should have no issue further regulating alcohol to reduces lives lost, as a result of irresponsible drinkers.
    And I'd be willing to bet that many, if not most, people who support gun control for that reason would also support increased regulations regarding alcohol and, specifically, DUI's (the biggest threat that alcohol poses to others) for the same reason.


    I think, at the very least, the background check carries water.
    One can check the background of someone who is a serial violator of laws, in relations to alcohol.
    The problem there is logistics. There are so many more purveyors of alcohol than there are purveyors of firearms. Plus the side effect of increasing crime by creating an increased black market for alcohol for those who are alcoholics. They aren't going to quit drinking just because buying it became more difficult. (the addiction factor is also something which changes the equivalencies of proposed regulations)
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #170
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I was channeling Zyph.
    I did read it, fwiw.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Not originally. Early Supreme court rulings stated otherwise, and the pre-amble of the bill of rights clerly indicates that it was designed ot be a limitation of federal authority over the states. Plus, the Bill of Rights came into existence because of fears that were brought up by anti-federalists over the expansion of federal authority presented by the unammended constitution (thus threatening ratification).
    Well ****.
    I guess if I had my way, I'd have the BOR apply to all states, universally.
    Not just for firearms, but for overall legal consistency.

    If we have freedom of religion/speech/press in Arizona, it should be so in Maryland.
    I know this has already been incorporated, but it could of saved a lot of time doing it this way.
    In this aspect, the founders were dumb asses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That would only create underground alcohol sales, probably by the same people who currently sell drugs. There's a high correlation between increased irresponsibility while intoxicated and alcoholism.
    While true, what I realized when searching about prohibition, was that a lot people did legitimately obey the law.
    Even those who drank too much, at least that's what I can divine from the reduction in cirrhosis.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This is actually in effect in many places, but not enforced adequately, either. I could see increasing the punishments for over-serving as being an equivalent comparison to some proposed gun regulations.

    Limiting alcohol content, or at least serving size of higher alcohol content, is possible at the local level, unlike many proposed gun regulations of a similar nature, which would need to be put in place federally to really be possible due to the Mcdonald v. Chicago ruling.

    That being said, neither approach would be nearly as effective at preventing DUI as mandatory ignition locks in all vehicles would be, though. Since that fits so well with real proposals for gun regulations, I think it works better for comparative purposes.
    This is true with firearms too.
    The ATF has not been pursuing prohibited persons who attempt to buy firearms.
    I think that's a parole violation, if I'm not mistaken.

    It's definitely a good example, one I'll likely use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    But you tweaked it a bit to match the alcohol argument better, no?
    Yes, attempting to be clever, but at the same time, coming up with something, that could be effective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    And I'd be willing to bet that many, if not most, people who support gun control for that reason would also support increased regulations regarding alcohol and, specifically, DUI's (the biggest threat that alcohol poses to others) for the same reason.
    See, I don't know if I agree with that.
    Social acceptance of alcohol, imo, is greater than that of firearms.
    I think we can gauge that based on public use of both and the popularity of the idea, that prohibition did nothing to stem usage (which is totally incorrect).

    I think a lot of people are completing willing to make ideological contradictions on this issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The problem there is logistics. There are so many more purveyors of alcohol than there are purveyors of firearms. Plus the side effect of increasing crime by creating an increased black market for alcohol for those who are alcoholics. They aren't going to quit drinking just because buying it became more difficult. (the addiction factor is also something which changes the equivalencies of proposed regulations)
    I agree, that is a technical problem.
    I think it is an apt comparison of potential regulations though, I think it works and makes sense of the basis of restricting sales, based on prior bad behavior.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •