• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time for Alcohol Control?

Should we propose further alcohol control?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • No

    Votes: 22 66.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • Total voters
    33
News flash....for some.
Guns, and the lack of their control killed those children, NOT knives, not drugs, not alcohol.
GUNS.
Alcohol is under plenty of control......what more do you want ?
prohibition ?
Read your American history.
We have far too many in a permanent state of denial....To change, to improve.....all but impossible.

News Flash... guns and alcohol didn't kill anyone, people with free will did. Should we eliminate free will?
 
That kind of careless disregard for others safety is a close second to deadly intent.

If someone had a BAC of 0.30 or something, THAT would be close to deadly intent.

Just because one may drive while under the influence does not mean they have a total disregard for human life.
 
If someone had a BAC of 0.30 or something, THAT would be close to deadly intent.

Just because one may drive while under the influence does not mean they have a total disregard for human life.

It's the equivalent of shooting into a building of people and saying, "I wasn't aiming for anyone." It's only a matter of time before someone gets hit. Impaired driving is an open assault on other drivers.
 
If someone had a BAC of 0.30 or something, THAT would be close to deadly intent.

Just because one may drive while under the influence does not mean they have a total disregard for human life.

Apart from the whole gun/alcohol thread, getting behind the wheel, under the influence of any intoxicant, is pretty damn idiotic/neglegent.
It's not like it isn't well known.
 
It reduced consumption and potentially alcohol disease related deaths.

NOT from what I have learned....
Lets try intelligence rather than stupidity in solving these problems.
Smoking cigarettes is a good case in point.
But, I notice that its only the poor who smoke......generally.
Why ?
Everyone (except my family) seems to drink...rich or poor.
Why ?
Today, the penalty for DUI is so great, that I'd think that no man would dare......
 
NOT from what I have learned....
Lets try intelligence rather than stupidity in solving these problems.
Smoking cigarettes is a good case in point.
But, I notice that its only the poor who smoke......generally.
Why ?
Everyone (except my family) seems to drink...rich or poor.
Why ?
Today, the penalty for DUI is so great, that I'd think that no man would dare......

And yet, they still do.
Because alcohol is an intoxicant.

Look at the CDC statistics, millions of (self reported) people commit DUI's every year.
 
If someone had a BAC of 0.30 or something, THAT would be close to deadly intent.

Just because one may drive while under the influence does not mean they have a total disregard for human life.

This is the "state of denial" that I speak of.. They (the drunk) do indeed have NO regard for anyone, but....to change this attitude.........
How ?
 
Apart from the whole gun/alcohol thread, getting behind the wheel, under the influence of any intoxicant, is pretty damn idiotic/neglegent.
It's not like it isn't well known.

Do you understand what "intent" means? I don't disagree that it's idiotic. It's idiotic as hell. But, it's not the same thing. Someone who gets behind the wheel under the influence does not have an intent to harm. Someone who walks into a school fully loaded surely does.
 
This is the "state of denial" that I speak of.. They (the drunk) do indeed have NO regard for anyone, but....to change this attitude.........
How ?

What about someone who blows a 0.09? Does someone who is under the influence have an intent to kill someone?
 
Do you understand what "intent" means? I don't disagree that it's idiotic. It's idiotic as hell. But, it's not the same thing. Someone who gets behind the wheel under the influence does not have an intent to harm. Someone who walks into a school fully loaded surely does.

It's implied intent.
Just like grip pointed out, getting behind the wheel is gambling with your life and others.
 
Do you understand what "intent" means? I don't disagree that it's idiotic. It's idiotic as hell. But, it's not the same thing. Someone who gets behind the wheel under the influence does not have an intent to harm. Someone who walks into a school fully loaded surely does.

The "not caring if you hurt someone" and "intentionally hurting someone" is different how? They're both criminal intent "mens rea".
 
It's implied intent.
Just like grip pointed out, getting behind the wheel is gambling with your life and others.

Implied intent?

What in the world does 'implied intent' mean? You either intend to do something or don't. Walking into a school fully loaded you surely have an intent.

While driving under the influence, you're 'intent' is NOT to kill people. Both are despicable. One is definitely more despicable than the other.
 
The "not caring if you hurt someone" and "intentionally hurting someone" is different how? They're both criminal intent "mens rea".

So all people who blow above a 0.08 do not care if they hurt someone?
 
Implied intent?

What in the world does 'implied intent' mean? You either intend to do something or don't. Walking into a school fully loaded you surely have an intent.

While driving under the influence, you're 'intent' is NOT to kill people. Both are despicable. One is definitely more despicable than the other.

It's not an actual legal term, but the knowledge that alcohol is a depressent and can alter your ability to make rational judgment calls, is well known, it's implied that you know it when you consume it.
When you get behind the wheel, under the influence, you know that you shouldn't, yet you still do.
That clearly means you're willing to subject everyone to the known risk of being under the influence, while driving a vehicle.
 
So all people who blow above a 0.08 do not care if they hurt someone?

You're talking shades of grey here. And obviously anyone above the legal limit behind a wheel doesn't care enough about their own safety or anyone else, that's why they go to jail. If I go to just shoot someone and end up killing them will the law note the difference?
 
You're talking shades of grey here. And obviously anyone above the legal limit behind a wheel doesn't care enough about their own safety or anyone else, that's why they go to jail. If I go to just shoot someone and end up killing them will the law note the difference?

Someone who drives 10 miles over speed limit has a certain disregard for everyones safety as well. Obviously they don't care as much about their own safety. Should they be put on the same level as murderers?

Probably not.
 
Someone who drives 10 miles over speed limit has a certain disregard for everyones safety as well. Obviously they don't care as much about their own safety. Should they be put on the same level as murderers?

Probably not.

Not necessarily.
Speed limits aren't always designed for public safety.

In fact, they can reduce public safety, by reducing the speed of some drivers below the prevailing speed.
 
Someone who drives 10 miles over speed limit has a certain disregard for everyones safety as well. Obviously they don't care as much about their own safety. Should they be put on the same level as murderers?

Probably not.


If they hit and hurt somebody, another car or pedestrian as a result of speeding they will be incarcerated. It a similar disregard for the safety of others.

Not caring is not far off from malicious intent and is regarded as so under the law.
 
If they hit and hurt somebody, another car or pedestrian as a result of speeding they will be incarcerated. It a similar disregard for the safety of others.

Not caring is not far off from malicious intent and is regarded as so under the law.

So we all have committed a disregard for others then. Yes?

After all, we went over the speed limit. But, we didn't have an intent to kill someone.

But, according to you, everyone who has went over the speed limit has an intent to kill someone, as as someone over the BAC, even 0.01 above the BAC.
 
So we all have committed a disregard for others then. Yes?

After all, we went over the speed limit. But, we didn't have an intent to kill someone.

But, according to you, everyone who has went over the speed limit has an intent to kill someone, as as someone over the BAC, even 0.01 above the BAC.

I'm not going to keep explaining to you how the wheel works.

The bottom line is that alcohol and guns don't hurt people, irresponsible and mentally disturbed people do. Restricting freedoms and choices from the public doesn't address the problem of crime. Laws are meant to improve freedom, so that everyones individual rights are not impeded and society as a whole is under equal protection. It's a fine line and balancing act, not to be over turned in a haste of emotions.
 
I'm not going to keep explaining to you how the wheel works.

The bottom line is that alcohol and guns don't hurt people, irresponsible and mentally disturbed people do. Restricting freedoms and choices from the public doesn't address the problem of crime. Laws are meant to improve freedom, so that everyones individual rights are not impeded and society as a whole is under equal protection. It's a fine line and balancing act, not to be over turned in a haste of emotions.

I guess I look at guns specifically as it relates to schools. I don't want guns banned all together. Believe me. I actually want to get a gun myself one day (if the other half lets me!).

If we have people armed in schools, which is the alternative, how does that play into the psychology of the kids at school?

And I was so adamant about the drunk driving case mostly because I was in mock trial and the biggest case I dealt with was a drunk driving case.
 
I guess I look at guns specifically as it relates to schools. I don't want guns banned all together. Believe me. I actually want to get a gun myself one day (if the other half lets me!).

If we have people armed in schools, which is the alternative, how does that play into the psychology of the kids at school?

The point of this thread, was to question how far are people willing to go in order to preserve life, by restricting access to something that is shown to be dangerous, but that they also use more often and/or find acceptable.
Alcohol and guns are very different animals, they do share some common characteristics (use for different cultural groups, entertainment, etc.)

I'm guessing most people don't want to restrict access to alcohol, even though there are far larger, negative societal effects.
To me, it's a contradiction in beliefs.
I want to know why people will make excuses for one side, but not the other.

I'd rather people own up to, "hey I accept there will be bad things that happen, it's not right, but that's the price of living in a somewhat free society."
 
Considering all the talk of gun control lately, let's review the facts around alcohol and consider some further restrictions around another "death causer."
That is alcohol.

CDC figures on alcohol related deaths.



FASTSTATS - Alcohol Use



CDC - Impaired Driving Facts - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center



WHO | Alcohol

I propose,

A background check system, for all alcohol purchases, supported by a fee, probably $25 per purchase.

A limit to the amount of alcohol containers, that can be purchased per day.

The limiting of alcohol percentages per volume, probably 5% or less.

What say you?
They tried gun control and alcohol control. Both were miserable failures.
 
Back
Top Bottom