What further freedoms would we have to give up in order to make alcohol illegal?

The mechanism of prohibition is already in place.

What further freedoms would we have to give up in order to just add one more substance to the list of prohibited substances?

No one on my "simple solution to drunk driving" thread seems to be able to answer the question.

Can anyone think of a single freedom we would have to give up in order to make alcohol illegal that is not already gone?

studies have shown that gambling and alcohol are very much intertwined along with smoking. Reno NV tried a non smoking casino and it went under in short order.

And growing up in "dry counties" can tell you that didn't stop drunk driving... uncles had stills and sold to mostly underage kids for a lot more than a beer would cost.

No one will be forcing the casinos to close, that will be a freely made business decision.

This thread is not about drunk driving, it is about freedoms and which further ones we would have to give up if alcohol were to be made illegal.

From smoking to drinking to abortion to sex - your body, your choice.

If you choose to do something with your body that harms others who have no choice in the matter, that should be a crime (ala drunk driving, et al) - I don't include things like smoking in that because if you go to a bar where smoking is allowed you have a choice not to (as one example).

Alcohol is but one of many recreational drugs, all of which except alcohol are illegal.

Like abortion, et al - you fight for more rights, not less.

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only two of which I'm aware.

Neither has the slightest chance of getting nominated.

Because he believes in choice.

When we start letting stats and health insurance decide how we live we lose what so many died for - freedom.

Restrict what you can DO while on substances, put harsh penalties on harming others on substances (as it should be).

I am all for legalizing what people want to put into their bodies, and making it a crime what you do to others while it is in your system.

But he honestly has no chance of getting the nomination.

He is seldom mentioned in the press and his appearance is not conducive to electability.

Which kills 16,000 innocent people per year.

Look at all the beer trucks delivering to local convenience stores. If alcohol were to be illegal then it would be impossible to have that level of activity without getting caught.

10,000 people there was a lively bootleg business going on to supply the drinkers. Many years later I was living in a home that used to belong to one of the doctors. My father kept saying "I think I have been in this house before." He could not remember until he took a walk down the alley. At one end was the old dance hall. That gave his memory a jog - 40 years before the old doctor who lived in may home made gin in the bathtub. When they went to dances it was a very short walk from that dance hall to the doctors house for a little refreshment.

I know people who make their own wine and beer today. Our family even has a good recipe for wine from my great uncle. I do not think it can be stopped.

That is the question.

That you failed to answer it is indicative of the state of our freedoms today.

Seems to me that having the government tell me what I can and can't drink is pretty invasive. And anyhow, didn't you already beat this dead horse into pulp in a previous thread?

No. I am not willing to give up the freedom to drink alcohol. I don't abuse it and I like it. Drunk driving is illegal already; and making alcohol an illegal substance will not prevent drunk driving. It would simply punish the huge majority of people who do not abuse alcohol and do not drive under the influence.

Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to drink alcohol?

It doesn't say anything about eating in the Constitution. Where does it say you have the right to wear clothes? It doesn't say anything about wearing clothes in the Constitution.

The Constitution does, however, prohibit overly broad legislation. A law must not punish conduct beyond that which the law intends to prohibit. In other words, if you intend to reduce drunk driving, the solution of prohibiting the use of alcohol by everyone is overly broad because it goes beyond the stated intent. In that way the law would be unconstitutional -- not because there is a stated right to drink in the Constitution, but because the law is overly broad. The solution is better enforcement of the drunk driving laws, perhaps with stricter penalties as well; not the unfair punishment of people who don't abuse alcohol and would never drive drunk.

Get thee to thy nearest community college and take a basic constitutional law course.

And stop whomping on this very, very deceased horse.

That you cannot think of any freedoms which you have to give up if alcohol were to be made illegal points out the sorry state of our freedoms in this country.

By the way, if you don't like this thread all you have to do is not click on it.

Just because he government doesn't recognize my rights does not mean they do not exist. The law may interfere on occasion with my enjoyment of them, but I still hold them.

If you have rights, then where do they come from?

Where do those rights come from?

You assume that rights come "from" somewhere/someplace/someone. I find that position illogical.

If something exists then logically it comes from somewhere.

If rights exist then they logically come from somewhere.

Please prove that. And if you could describe what you mean by "where" that would be helpful in clarifying your question.

And to reply to your original post, Can anyone think of a single freedom we would have to give up in order to make alcohol illegal that is not already gone?

I can. The freedom to drink alcohol.

I suspect that is not the answer you are looking for (which I believe is "None") but that happens to be the correct answer.

Could it be the freedom to do as you please with your own body?

I thought you were trying to engage in simple socratic question-and-answer dialog. All you want is someone to underline your already-decided-upon idea.

Good night.

To instruct through the use of leading questions?

http://www.answers.com/topic/socratic-method

Socratic method
n.

A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge.

Something about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... being endowed by their Creator with those RIGHTS.

If rights have to "come from" somewhere, they come from being BORN a human being. To insist otherwise is merely to be pedantic.

Bake

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

which I don't have.

I win, now for a glass of merlot and some green herb.

Remember the 18th Amendment, "Prohibition", in 1920? Remember the "Roaring 20's"? Remember that it was repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment, making it the only Amendment to be repealed in it's entirety?

Why repeat mistakes of the past?

Give it up.

What further freedoms would we have to give up if alcohol were to be made illegal?

That you fail to answer the question is indicative of the state of our freedoms today.

The real question has nothing to do with "other" personal freedoms. Banning alcohol simply doesn't work.
Just what we need a War on Alcohol, since the War on Drugs is going so well.
:eyes:

It points out the sorry state of our freedoms in this country.

Directly, none. Indirectly, maybe all since no one would be able to speak out about losing their other freedoms.

We cannot predict what freedoms would be taken away in order to enforce another Prohibition. Probably the right to privacy - oops! That was taken away because of Terrorism. The Right to Assemble? Probably, since a lot of people assemble in bars. But Public Assembly is already heavily regulated since you have to get a permit and are limited to "Free Speech" zones.

Yes, if alcohol was banned, we would probably lose many freedoms in the name of "enforcement". But no one can accurately predict what those rights and freedoms might be, since we don't know what the Administration might deem "necessary" in the enforcement.

So how could this be law enforced? If the goal is to prevent drunk driving, would the police be given the authority to just stop people and give them sobriety tests as they walk toward their cars? Would they be authorized to search your home to look for booze? Would they have to have a warrant to do so, and could they execute "no-knock" warrants like they can now for drugs? Of course they could, since it's easy to dump the stuff down the sink before the cops come in. Would there be liquor patrols of cops looking in people's homes for stills and homemade wine?

Seems to me this would lead to a whole lot of pissing on the Fourth Amendment.

Would they be authorized to search your home to look for booze? Would they have to have a warrant to do so, and could they execute "no-knock" warrants like they can now for drugs?

You make my argument for me.

Alcohol is but one of many recreational drugs. It would simply be added to the list of other prohibited recreational drugs and treated in the same manner as the other drugs.

People seem to have this idea that alcohol is somehow special and is not a drug.

This is incorrect, alcohol is a poisonous recreational drug. That is why you can overdose on alcohol, it's called alcohol poisoning.

We have to few people already in prisons and jails. Lets outlaw booze, but this time, we make it a crime to drink it. Penalty, more than one ounce is 5 years in jail.

And they call that "poisoning" also. It's just semantics. Many things that are healthy and good in moderation are toxic in excess.

Bake

Since they are already doing so for all other recreational drugs than alcohol.

Alcohol would simply be added to the lengthy list of other prohibited recreational drugs and enforcement would continue as it is now.

In fact, let's move the line back a good long way to where it was when we STARTED this little experiment in democracy. And draw the line THERE.

Bake

I grew up with an alcoholic parent who died of it. So, as much as I'd like to see a solution, bringing back prohibition is not it. The whole industry just goes underground. You cannot regulate human vice. You can only educate people and try to contain the problem.

What further rights would we have to give up if alcohol were simply added to the list of all other recreational drugs that are already illegal?

Why does everyone avoid answering such a simple question?

How about the right to make that choice for ourselves? For example, I drink only very occasionally. I honestly would not miss alcohol if it were made illegal, but I would definitely miss the right to have a responsible drink when I decide I'd like one.

What you wish to do with your body.

http://www.answers.com/topic/socratic-method

Socratic method
n.

A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge.

You asked what rights would we lose if alcohol were made illegal. I haven't already lost the right to decide for myself whether I'd like a wee dram; alcohol is still legal.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


http://www.answers.com/topic/socratic-method

Socratic method
n.

A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge.

You seem to want to argue that even one infringement on what we can do to ourselves means we've lost all liberty. That's a defeatist outlook IMO. No one can really take your freedom to do what you wish from you. You LET others take it or you defy them.

People are freaking out about the idea of making alcohol illegal. They are telling me that alcohol prohibition is the worst idea in the world and it will cause violence and more drunkenness and poisoning people with bad hooch, etc. etc.

And yet really only two have answered the question I posed in the OP.

The answer truly is "none".

ala 'what freedoms are lost in banning a substance'?

From a naturally growing plant to alcohol (which has been around for damned long time and pretty much considered natural) do people have a freedom to ingest into their systems things which affect them mostly as an individual and secondly as a group - ala, when you ingest said substance you are more likely (statistics again...) to do X which affects more than just yourself when ingesting it.

Millions upon Millions drink, smoke pot, snort, smoke cigs, etc - do the effects of said actions have a pronounced effect upon other people? If it can be show that it does, then a case could be made; but if numerically speaking it is small than the problem is not the substance but a subset of people using it. And those should be the target.

Remove the problem users from society not the item being used.

Similar to gun legislation. Loads of people own and use them, a few use them in a poor fashion. Guns are not the problem, users of them are. Punish the abusers. Most people have two hands, some use those hands to abuse others - the problem is not that people have hands, it is that some use them in a manner that harms others.

It's amazing to me that so many people are going so far out of their way to avoid answering the question.

What further rights would we have to give up if alcohol were treated as are all other recreational drugs today?

My church uses real wine in their communion service. During Prohibition we were forbidden access to wine. My father told me that some of our ministers actually bought from the bootleggers. One bottle of wine would have lasted quite a while because communion allows only one sip per adult person. If wine was illegal then we would have been denied one of our religious rights. You wanted to know about rights - this is one that at least one church would be denied.

Rastafarians have been denied their sacrament, cannabis.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_rastafarianism.htm

Gatherings of believers, called Nyahbinghi, usually center around the sharing of the "Chalice," a large ceremonial pipe containing the Rastafarian sacrament, Ganga (Marijuana), a practice likened to the Christian communion ceremony.

Your profile says it all. This is the dumbest thread on the board right now.

:) :)

:)

Why will no one answer it?

What further rights will we lose if alcohol is simply added to the list of all other recreational drugs which are already illegal?

All that has to happen for me to shut up is for someone to answer the question.

You already know the answer, you just do not wish to admit it to yourself.

I can understand what you're saying. You may have a good point here - after all, we don't e.g. have control over our own bodies, because pot is illegal while alcohol is not, so it's a double-standard government-choice situation. They decide where the rights do and don't apply, which destroys the idea of the rights altogether.

Am I following you here?

http://www.answers.com/topic/socratic-method

Socratic method
n.

A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge.

It's hard to fathom, that someone would spend all their time posting flame bait, but this guy seems to get off on it.

to try and make an argument for legalizing other recreational drugs? Could it be Mr Natural and the toon in your sig?
Personally, I'm all for legalizing marijuana, or at least legalizing medicinal marijuana and de-criminalizing recreational use. The problem with legalizing it completely is that with alcohol, you can do a blood test or breathalyzer and tell if they're under the influence. With pot, if they smoked anytime recently it will register, whether they are currently stoned or not.
Of course, stoned drivers are usually the ones driving real slow and not much of a danger....

Coke, crack, heroin, meth, etc. - I don't think so.

he is no Mr. Natural
but one of the other characters
out of ZAP comixs

Strange viewpoint on what freedom, responsibility and accountability are
but I won't take away that "freedom" that makes him what he is.

I but ask a simple question that everyone wishes not to answer.

What further rights would we have to give up if alcohol were to be made illegal in exactly the same manner as all other recreational drugs?

You missed the point of what freedom is.

What further rights would we have to give up if alcohol were simply to be added to the list of all other recreational drugs that are illegal?

You already know the answer, you just don't wish to admit it even to yourself.

You stated it many times with your
"final solution" to the problem.




You are the one that still doesn't' get it!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

US notches world's highest incarceration rate
A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

"These new numbers are shocking enough, but what we don't see are the ripple effects of what they mean: For the generation of black children today, there's almost an inevitable aspect of going to prison," says Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "We have the wealthiest society in human history, and we maintain the highest level of imprisonment. It's striking what that says about our approach to social problems and inequality."

And don't give me that devil's advocate shit.

Because I have seen your writings
and you are not playing that card
or even a Socratic argument.

I will give up my freedom of beating your dead horse
of inane intellectualism until you try to raise it again.

How do you know what my intentions are?

Take a look at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x606469

No one can name a single federal level politician in favor of ending the War On Drugs besides the two I named in the OP, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

I find the level of outrage at my suggestion of making alcohol illegal to be extremely illuminating.

Even the liberals here at DU passively accept the War On Drugs but vehemently oppose a War On Alcohol.

Would you care to expand on your answer a bit?

That this was a "set-up". To quote a line in your post:

"Even the liberals here at DU passively accept the War On Drugs but vehemently oppose a War On Alcohol."

Like I said, I'm for the decriminalization of marijuana, although you really can't compare alcohol to marijuana because there is already a leagal infrastructure in place the sale and distribution of alcohol.

So I think we're on the same side, I'm just not sure about your methods.

..because anyone idiotic enough to accept prohibition has clearly abandoned his or her right to exercise this freedom.

All I ask is what further rights would we lose if alcohol were simply added to the list of all the other recreational drugs that are illegal?

Why is everyone so reluctant to answer the question?

That's why.

Criminalization has simply become a means of regulation when it comes to all controlled substances. I contend (and I don't think I'm alone here) that criminalization is a poor form or regulating drug use and distribution and that true regulatory stipulations could be put into place if the drugs weren't simply illegal. If alcohol were illegal, yes it would be more difficult to procure. However, there would be no regulation on alcohol that was distributed illegally, such as the limit of alcohol content for non-liquors, or for that matter the safe quality of the beverages that must now meet a pasteurization standard.

But, all of that aside, to continue criminalizing anything and everything we may come to deem unsavory or unsatisfactory, would eventually lead to totalitarian government rule. Now I ask you, what freedoms do you think we'd be giving up then?

And yet people are doing back flips to avoid answering it.

What further rights will we lose if alcohol is added to the list of all other recreational drugs which are already illegal?

http://www.answers.com/topic/socratic-method

Socratic method
n.

A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge.

is pointless. You're not looking for an answer and you know it. You're looking for the answer you want. Well, you ain't gettin' it. But, if an answer is what you seek, than an answer is what ye shall receive:

The right to religious freedom. Millions of American participate in sacrament services and other religious ceremonies which include wine. If alcohol were made illegal, these ancient practices would be as well, forcing religious institutions to alter or eliminate sacred traditions to adhere to the new laws. That's a violation of the first amendment.

The rest of the country would become a plastic, cookie-cutter America for bible-thumpers only.

Then I would pray for Zeus to destroy it.

And other people would rather consume cannabis?

Could it have something to do with one's brain biochemistry?


http://www.answers.com/topic/socratic-method

Socratic method
n.

A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge.

I like both. :D

Btw, I learned how to write fugues ('species counterpoint') by reading and working though a socratic treatise written by Johann Fux entitled Gradus ad Parnassum.

I'm not going to touch it

It's really quite simple.

accept the premise that other freedoms will have to be forfeit.

Hence, loaded question.

it's been tried, and it DOESN'T WORK.

if you're so all-fired up about wanting to live someplace where it's illegal, move to saudi arabia.

the rest of us are just fine with legal hooch.

and i don't even drink- due to the meds i take for chronic pain, i haven't had an alcoholic drink in over 7 years. but i do go through about an oz of weed each and every week.

i'd honestly prefer pot to be legal- but it's "prohibition" doesn't phase my usage in the least- i still get what i need/want when i choose to.

and if alcohol were added to your "prohibition" list, it wouldn't stop anyone who really wanted it from getting it- it would only take away the tax revenue that the states/feds get from it, while at the same time causing a spike in crime- requiring more money spent on policing/courts/prisons. as a nation- we decisded it was a lose-lose situation awhile back, as far as alcohol is concerned. and hopefully we'll eventually come to realize the same about pot prohibition. maybe even in my lifetime.

I told everybody that once they ban smoking in the bars they would go after other vices. Once you have these smoking bans in place, this ushered-in the "New Puritanism" and it is being embraced by much of the powers that be in both parties. Now they can limit the amount of alcohol consumed, ban strip clubs, and all sorts of stuff like that.

I have a post that might interest you I just put up tonight. It's about what is happening in Seattle.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x606266


It's the return of the Puritans!

Cannabis is completely illegal because the government says it is dangerous.

Alcohol is far more dangerous than cannabis.

Therefore alcohol should be illegal also.

Can you find a flaw in the logic?

That, and I'm not to keen on the gov't telling me what is and is not dangerous. Dangerous to whom? All the time, or just for some? In what circumstances is it dangerous? Are there circumstances where it is not dangerous?

I have no doubt that you will refuse to even engage with me on any topic unless I answer your "question of the day", so let's get that out of the way straight off so we can move on. You said: Can anyone think of a single freedom we would have to give up in order to make alcohol illegal that is not already gone? My answer: I cannot think of any further rights that we will lose if alcohol is made illegal (assuming you didn't mean the right to drink alcohol, and ignoring the can o' worms surrounding the meaning of the word "rights", whether they actually exist, and where they originate). This is the conclusion I came to after about 5 minutes of thought, and I also suspect that it is the answer you really, really want to hear, so I hope that will be sufficient to move on to another, more interesting topic now.

Alright. Having said that...

I also agree that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. However, I do not agree with the premise that either one should be illegal. My personal viewpoint is that the correct solution to a social problem is a social solution, not a legal solution. What do I mean? Well, the use of tobacco is a good example. We have never made tobacco illegal for adults, and yet tobacco use has declined precipitously in the last 50 years. Why? Because social norms changed such that tobacco use became stigmatized. Part of this was perhaps just a natural progression, but a lot of people and public interest groups worked hard over that time to educate the public about the dangers of smoking, and worked to connect the image of smoking with ugliness and a lower class lifestyle (no offense to any smokers, I used to be one myself). We may always have a few people statistically speaking who ignore these kinds of changes in prescriptive social norms, but my guess is that in 50 years, less than 1% of the population will smoke. I bet a lot more people than that will be still using pot at that time, even if it is still illegal. So...if you want people and society to TRULY change, rather than just comply with some rule or regulation, you have to change what is accepted and normal in their world. If you are concerned about drunk driving, then you must work harder to stigmatize drunk driving, and make it taboo socially rather than legally. Making things illegal makes them forbidden fruit to some, creates a certain percentage of people who are complying only because they are afraid of being caught (but they aren't really "true believers"), and beyond that, some stubborn people will still do it anyway because they don't care about law and order (but almost everyone cares about being ostracized by other people).

It is irrational and unfortunate that, given that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, that cannabis is the substance we are forbidden to consume. However, the appropriate course of action to rectify this inconsistency is to work on making cannabis legal also, not to make alcohol illegal. That's assuming, of course, that you are the type of person, as I am, who believes in the legalization of drugs. Alternatively, if it is the case that you don't support the legalization of drugs, you should state your viewpoint directly so that others can engage you in a more rational discussion of the pros and cons of legalization beyond "losing further rights" (which strikes me as a rather strange point of contention from either side of the debate). Right now, it's difficult to tell exactly what you are getting at with this thread, and frankly, it's contributing poorly to the overall level of civility on DU.

suck up and go stick your head back in the sand. maybe you can read the good book with more clarity from there :shrug:
Oh, next person you see drinking go ask him and see what answer you get.

why the devisive questions and statements is my question for you this morning :shrug:

It's a very simple question.

like your asinine statement about electric cars and pollution sheeeze

The only electric car that people point to as being more efficient is the Tesla roadster, which costs $93,000 dollars, has no roof, no heater and no AC.

It also has not been tested by any outside agency as far as I can determine to confirm the claims of the company making it.

is all any of us want. a link just a little ole link,:shrug:

ain't one I would bet if I was a betting man

The two are not synonymous.
The Professor

**"Can anyone think of a single freedom we would have to give up in order to make alcohol illegal that is not already gone?"**


The freedom to drink alcohol.
Lee