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 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718
Results 171 to 178 of 178

Thread: Time for Alcohol Control?

  1. #171
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,294

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    We know that Prohibition didn't work. Now we profit handsomely from taxing alcohol. An industry that profits handsomely from alcohol has spawned non stop Media efforts to glamorize alcohol. The Media profits handsomely from this glamorization. Let's just legalize everything and not tax it and let nature take its' course. Taxation agencies will fight this, Media will fight this, Corporate Distillers will fight this. Gadzooks, those that profit from the status quo will fight this. That leaves education to teach citizens not only how to make their own intoxicants, but also to teach responsibility regarding those intoxicants. Oh no! I am saying let's get the gov't out of the crack of our asses! I must be insane or I believe in personal responsibility and don't want any more gov't, whose financial support of Military Offense is 60-70% of our budget, interference in raising my children. I think our culture is sufficiently advanced that they can be trusted with personal responsibility.

  2. #172
    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 DaveFagan View Post
    We know that Prohibition didn't work. Now we profit handsomely from taxing alcohol. An industry that profits handsomely from alcohol has spawned non stop Media efforts to glamorize alcohol. The Media profits handsomely from this glamorization. Let's just legalize everything and not tax it and let nature take its' course. Taxation agencies will fight this, Media will fight this, Corporate Distillers will fight this. Gadzooks, those that profit from the status quo will fight this. That leaves education to teach citizens not only how to make their own intoxicants, but also to teach responsibility regarding those intoxicants. Oh no! I am saying let's get the gov't out of the crack of our asses! I must be insane or I believe in personal responsibility and don't want any more gov't, whose financial support of Military Offense is 60-70% of our budget, interference in raising my children. I think our culture is sufficiently advanced that they can be trusted with personal responsibility.
    Prohibition did reduce consumption.
    While the intent was to eliminate it altogether, it was partially successful.
    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

  3. #173
    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
    I did read it, fwiw.
    And I appreciate it.




    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.
    I agree that such basic human rights as freedom of religion should be universal across all of the states (My one exception to my State's rights position is when it is used to subjugate and ostracize minority groups), I disagree that the founders were dumbasses to set things up in a dual federation as they did 9also remember that it was a much, much smaller country back then both in population and square mileage). It's all about my belief that freedom = a larger range of options, though. An overly powerful federal authority, in a country this expansive, acts to limit options rather than increase them. This increases overall disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction with the rules which one is subjected to.



    While true, what I realized when searching about prohibition, was that a lot people did legitimately obey the law.
    Absolutely. But not as many as you might assume based on the data you have presented (it's incomplete).


    Even those who drank too much, at least that's what I can divine from the reduction in cirrhosis.
    There are multiple potential confounds here. First, a lot of people who were hardcore alcoholics (the people who get cirrhosis) ended up dying during other alcohol related mishaps (drinking poisonous alcohol, for example, from a bad batch of bathtub gin, especially in rural areas). The other potential confound, not addressed in the article, was that people did not seek treatment for alcohol related illnesses out of fear of prosecution (often irrational).

    Data I have looked at in the past indicated that alcohol related deaths overall were relatively unchanged as a group due to a swapping of deaths from things like cirrhosis with deaths from drinking bad black-market alcohol. The point is that looking at the cirrhosis numbers in a vacuum and drawing conclusions based on that little nugget of data is fallacious.





    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.
    It's only a parole violation if they are still on parole.



    Yes, attempting to be clever, but at the same time, coming up with something, that could be effective.
    Which is why the concept has potential, but falls short as it has been presented.



    See, I don't know if I agree with that.
    Social acceptance of alcohol, imo, is greater than that of firearms.
    But social acceptance of firearms is infinitely greater than the social acceptance of DUI (which is the #1 cause of alcohol related deaths by such a large margin that it warrants being the primary target of any and all new regulations with regard to alcohol)

    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).
    It'd be more accurate to say that prohibition did nothing to benefit society, nd that it may have had more detrimental effects than beneficial effects. To say that nobody stopped drinking because of prohibition is absurd. But things that are not taken into account when people talk about prohibition "working" are things like the increases seen in drinking rates of minors. This increase makes sense when you think about it though. Law abiding people did not wish to serve minors alcohol for the most part (there are always exceptions, but as a rule it was frowned upon). But once the people who were selling alcohol were all criminals, such moral distinctions went by the wayside. Prohibition actually increases a minor's ability to acquire intoxicants (this is true for drugs today) because of this. Legal purveyors of intoxicants do not want to risk their livelihood for the sake of a few bucks of profit, but when the crime is the same regardless of who you sell your goods to, you won't have the same motivation to not sell to minors.

    I think a lot of people are completing willing to make ideological contradictions on this issue.
    I'd say that a lot are, as well, but just as many on both sides of the equation are making those contradictions (as my federal vs. state argument demonstrates, considering that the vast majority of people who profess to support state's rights are also people who oppose all forms of gun control, even at the state and local level. Think of it this way, why are so many people in gun permissive states so up in arms about Chicago's gun laws, but will not even bat an eyelid at saying that they support state's rights when it comes to abortion or gay marriage?)



    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 agree that the underlying premise of restricting use based on prior anti-social behavior appears to be identical, but the logistical issue makes background checks fairly practical for one and not the other. I bet that we can come up with some alternative proposals, however, that utilize the same underlying premise and do not have the same logistical problems.

    For example, instead of focusing on alcohol sales, perhaps we can look at the sale of motor vehicles (base don DUI being the greatest danger posed by alcohol). Background checks for purchasing vehicles is far more logistically possible. In fact, permanent revocation of one's drivers license is already a punishment for those who are serial DUI offenders, but nothing is currently done to prevent them from procuring a vehicle, so it is pretty much identical in nature to the firearm background check, when you think about it. My guess, though, is that many people who support background checks for firearms would also support such background checks for vehicles. Personally, I have no problem with such a thing becoming mandatory. They could even make it so that anyone who sells a car themselves would have to make a photocopy of the purchaser's drivers license to make sure that the purchaser presented what appeared to be a valid drivers license.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #174
    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 agree that such basic human rights as freedom of religion should be universal across all of the states (My one exception to my State's rights position is when it is used to subjugate and ostracize minority groups), I disagree that the founders were dumbasses to set things up in a dual federation as they did 9also remember that it was a much, much smaller country back then both in population and square mileage). It's all about my belief that freedom = a larger range of options, though. An overly powerful federal authority, in a country this expansive, acts to limit options rather than increase them. This increases overall disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction with the rules which one is subjected to.
    Oh I agree.
    I think the BOR should be universal for all states, but yes you're right about the states rights and more options.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Absolutely. But not as many as you might assume based on the data you have presented (it's incomplete).
    True.
    I wish there was more complete data.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    There are multiple potential confounds here. First, a lot of people who were hardcore alcoholics (the people who get cirrhosis) ended up dying during other alcohol related mishaps (drinking poisonous alcohol, for example, from a bad batch of bathtub gin, especially in rural areas). The other potential confound, not addressed in the article, was that people did not seek treatment for alcohol related illnesses out of fear of prosecution (often irrational).

    Data I have looked at in the past indicated that alcohol related deaths overall were relatively unchanged as a group due to a swapping of deaths from things like cirrhosis with deaths from drinking bad black-market alcohol. The point is that looking at the cirrhosis numbers in a vacuum and drawing conclusions based on that little nugget of data is fallacious.
    Sound argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It's only a parole violation if they are still on parole.
    True.
    I know if a prohibited person lies on the 4473 form, it illegal, but if they don't and try anyway, that I'm not sure of.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Which is why the concept has potential, but falls short as it has been presented.
    I'm trying.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    But social acceptance of firearms is infinitely greater than the social acceptance of DUI (which is the #1 cause of alcohol related deaths by such a large margin that it warrants being the primary target of any and all new regulations with regard to alcohol)
    Perhaps steeper punishments are necessary, for the misuse of both.
    But really I'm not sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It'd be more accurate to say that prohibition did nothing to benefit society, nd that it may have had more detrimental effects than beneficial effects. To say that nobody stopped drinking because of prohibition is absurd. But things that are not taken into account when people talk about prohibition "working" are things like the increases seen in drinking rates of minors. This increase makes sense when you think about it though. Law abiding people did not wish to serve minors alcohol for the most part (there are always exceptions, but as a rule it was frowned upon). But once the people who were selling alcohol were all criminals, such moral distinctions went by the wayside. Prohibition actually increases a minor's ability to acquire intoxicants (this is true for drugs today) because of this. Legal purveyors of intoxicants do not want to risk their livelihood for the sake of a few bucks of profit, but when the crime is the same regardless of who you sell your goods to, you won't have the same motivation to not sell to minors.
    That's a great case too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I'd say that a lot are, as well, but just as many on both sides of the equation are making those contradictions (as my federal vs. state argument demonstrates, considering that the vast majority of people who profess to support state's rights are also people who oppose all forms of gun control, even at the state and local level. Think of it this way, why are so many people in gun permissive states so up in arms about Chicago's gun laws, but will not even bat an eyelid at saying that they support state's rights when it comes to abortion or gay marriage?)
    It's definitely ideologically inconsistent.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I agree that the underlying premise of restricting use based on prior anti-social behavior appears to be identical, but the logistical issue makes background checks fairly practical for one and not the other. I bet that we can come up with some alternative proposals, however, that utilize the same underlying premise and do not have the same logistical problems.
    Have "No Alcohol" printed on an ID?
    Easy to make, of course fake ID's can overcome it, but it's far more realistic than NCIS for alcohol purchases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    For example, instead of focusing on alcohol sales, perhaps we can look at the sale of motor vehicles (base don DUI being the greatest danger posed by alcohol). Background checks for purchasing vehicles is far more logistically possible. In fact, permanent revocation of one's drivers license is already a punishment for those who are serial DUI offenders, but nothing is currently done to prevent them from procuring a vehicle, so it is pretty much identical in nature to the firearm background check, when you think about it. My guess, though, is that many people who support background checks for firearms would also support such background checks for vehicles. Personally, I have no problem with such a thing becoming mandatory. They could even make it so that anyone who sells a car themselves would have to make a photocopy of the purchaser's drivers license to make sure that the purchaser presented what appeared to be a valid drivers license.
    Likely to work, they can already run credit checks, a background check wouldn't be that difficult.
    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. #175
    Sage
    BretJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,361

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Red wine is good for your heart and your prostate too. Can't say that about a bullet.
    I had never considered offering assailants a glass of red wine rather than free access to my prostate, wife or daughter. You may be on to something. By showing concern for their heart and prostate, you can avoid a more serious confrontation. Liberals take note!

    A bullet is absolutely good for my heart and prostate if it's my heart and prostate being threatened. Not so good for the bad guy though.
    My life > bad guys life.
    The opposite of hero is not villain, it is "bystander"
    " In doing what we ought we deserve no praise, because it is our duty." -Aurelius Augustine
    "But why do they use them to make Brawndo??!!"

  6. #176
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,500

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    And largely I agree with all that.

    I am perfectly willing to accept, that with our privileges (aka "rights") and freedoms, there may be negative consequences, very bad consequences.
    I'm not going to cover up that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands.

    I'm tired of the pile on, when it comes to guns.
    Legal and responsible gun owners, can't control the irresponsible and illegal gun owners, anymore than the safe drinkers can control the unsafe drinkers.
    Continuing to punish legal and responsible guns owners, for the actions of the bad, is the punishment not fitting the crime.
    I agree. I mean people, and that includes you and me...are powerless over other people, places, and things for the most part. If my wife went bonkers and decided to shoot me and all the deer in the yard????

    Now, we do have to try and be reasonable. Obviously we don't want people with dirty bombs, tanks and major size military artillery running around the streets. That would be a slightly unfair advantage over most law enforcement agencies, much less the average gun owner.

    But I believe for the most part that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible people. If the facts were contrary to "most gun owners are responsible" then we would live like Tombstone or Deadwood days when times were virtually lawless and shoot-outs may have been common place. That's just not the case.

    We live in a nation of nearly 320 million people and the stone cold truth is that there are people who are born with bad wiring...born psychopaths. They will commit horrible crimes against their follow beings regardless of laws in place. If guns were outlawed today and the government confiscated every gun possible. I know, without a doubt there would be tons of street made pipe guns being made. And I might be one person who would make my own, if necessary. I don't consider myself to be a so-called gun nut (and I've never been accused of being such - that I'm aware of), I just want the right to protect myself, my family, and my property.

    I don't know what the answer is, but it's not outlawing guns and leave law abiding citizens vulnerable to people who have no regard for the law. But to be honest. I feel a sense of concern about governmental agencies of one kind or another infringing on my life (our lives), safety, and well being. Call me paranoid, but that's how it is for me.

  7. #177
    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
    Have "No Alcohol" printed on an ID?
    Easy to make, of course fake ID's can overcome it, but it's far more realistic than NCIS for alcohol purchases.
    I feel like a retard for not seeing that as a possible solution to the logistical problem. So simple, yet so effective.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #178
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,500

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Interesting thing, this state of
    Texas and their laws.
    Do they work ?
    Yes, as, the next Texas statue will be "three strikes and you are out" , aka, in Texas, DEATH..
    And, as we all know, this death penalty works well in reducing crime........
    The thing is, few have the stomach for alcohol prohibition..
    For many, alcohol is a necessity.
    As of now, I believe we do have the "stomach" for gun control...which is nothing more than 100% background checks and restrictions on assault weapons..
    And, BTW, we do have alcohol control in Pennsylvania, AKA "state stores", which the conservatives wish to do away with.
    With PA's controls, how do they compare to Texas (for one) ??
    We need controls, man is NOT fully developed..He has a long way to go.
    EW, I don't really believe that laws in general will deter some people from doing whatever they do to others. Not here in Texas - or any other state as far as that goes.

    People who have issues with alcohol usually don't think they have issues with alcohol. Consequently, many people who wind up incarcerated because of alcohol related issues don't ever really deal with the root problem, and they do the same thing over and over again...and they don't really care about expecting different results.

    People who, for whatever reason, whether it be a genuine mental disorder or born a psychopath, will commit crimes against other people regardless of the social standards, norms, or laws. You know that as well as I do.

    If a person is determined to harm another person. It doesn't have to be with a gun. It can be a knife, a pipe, a tree branch, a pencil...on and on. It can be with a vehicle...drunk or sober. The reasons that drive people to hurt other people are as many as there are people.

    We are all virtually powerless to stop other people who are determined to hurt others...at least once. We may arrest them and put them away for life - after the fact - but after the fact is after the fact and the damage is done.

    As I write this...I'm reading Fredmertzz's post below mine. He has some pretty valid points, in my humble opinion.

Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718

Posting Permissions

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