Should Alchohol be Illegal?

[Distruzio]

Pffft. No. Hell no.

How could I take my communion without wine?

Easily. Non-alcoholic wine.

My love, im Orthodox. Wine and Christ go hand in hand... Along with feasts, dancing, and sweet sweet singing. Drunken singing but hey, whatevs.

[Orham]

I expect you would feel different if you knew someone who was injured as a result of drinking-impaired driving...

The problem with this part of your argument is that alcohol does not, in any way, actually cause anyone to drive. Alcohol consumption causes drunkenness, nothing more. It significantly diminishes peoples' driving ability by lowering their response time, it weakens their judgment such that they might want to drive despite their impediment, but the alcohol doesn't actually cause drunk driving.

It's all about drinking responsibly. A responsible drinker leaves their keys in a bowl at the door. A responsible drinker has a designated driver. A responsible drinker knows their limitations and stays within them. A responsible drinker knows what sort of effects alcohol has on their personality, and knows whether or not to drink based upon this knowledge. A responsible drinker is attentive to their work schedule when they drink.

A responsible drinker is what we ought to assume everyone to be until they prove themselves otherwise.

Prohibition won't work in the USA... but only because people are too stubborn with their freedoms and overall just too blind to see that it's socially beneficial to get rid of alcohol overall. Which is why we need to start by hammering it into everyone ''Alcohol is stupid, dangerous, and bad.'' Once we do some social re-engineering then we can consider effectively banning it. The only thing standing in our way is the wrong mentality.

You mean like regularly running PSAs on television and radio stations, school gatherings to discuss the legal and social issues relevant to alcohol consumption, randomly administering alcohol tests along major roadways, and other such things that the USA is already doing to limit the negative social impact irresponsible drinking can have?

Criminal law should always follow the public consensus...

What? So if society came to a consensus that people who feel alcohol ought to be illegal should be criminals, it is your contention that the law rightly ought to dictate that such people belong in prison (to include yourself). And it is further your contention that such a law should be considered legitimately enforceable and fly in the courts by virtue of popular consensus on the matter.

Surely you can see why such a system is problematic now?

We could easily use something else that tastes much better and doesn't cause drunk driving as a ''social'' drink, soda or whatever.

We've just been over this, but it bears repeating: alcohol doesn't cause drunk driving, it causes drunkenness. Irresponsible drinking is not synonymous with drinking, and drunk driving is one of many conceivable consequences of irresponsible drinking.

Alcohol is expensive on the healthcare system and it causes crimes...

Not that I doubt widespread alcoholism would result in a burden on a healthcare system, but source that alcoholism is a significant problem in the US? And again: alcohol causes drunkenness. The state of being drunk impairs peoples' judgment, which can result in something as severe as deciding to drive drunk or something relatively mild, such as deciding to watch bad films. Again, it's about responsible drinking and irresponsible drinking.

...and like many other things it can be addictive.

...so? Caffeine is addictive, gambling is addictive, video games are purportedly addictive, shall we ban them all based on this? What is your point?

EDIT: Missed the point on something.

[God Kefka]

The problem with this part of your argument is that alcohol does not, in any way, actually cause anyone to drive. Alcohol consumption causes drunkenness, nothing more. It significantly diminishes peoples' driving ability by lowering their response time, it weakens their judgment such that they might want to drive despite their impediment, but the alcohol doesn't actually cause drunk driving.

It's all about drinking responsibly. A responsible drinker leaves their keys in a bowl at the door. A responsible drinker has a designated driver. A responsible drinker knows their limitations and stays within them. A responsible drinker knows what sort of effects alcohol has on their personality, and knows whether or not to drink based upon this knowledge. A responsible drinker is attentive to their work schedule when they drink.

A responsible drinker is what we ought to assume everyone to be until they prove themselves otherwise.

But this is the problem... we are not all responsible drivers (even though the law may assume we all are until proven otherwise). When someone gets into that car drunk, drives, and then kills/injures others society and the innocent pay the price.

Even if you wanted to be really technical and insist that alcohol doesn't directly cause drunk driving accidents... it at the very least makes them possible. Without access to alcohol... how does one get into a drunk driving accident?

There are responsible and irresponsible drivers but having alcohol in the picture allows for the possibility of some really bad outcomes. In an ideal world (if we could get there) where there is no alcohol or where alcohol is more universally vilified, we can decrease the probability that someone who drives irresponsibly is paired up with a context where he will be drinking a lot.

This is the scenario we are trying to minimize happening. In the current society, there's too many ways for alcohol to get mixed up with irresponsible drivers.

A huge proportion of people are killed/injured every year due to combinations of alcohol and driving. The present status quo where a ton of people drink a lot at parties because it is considered the social drink... definitely at least plays a part in making this setup happen more often than we would like.

You mean like regularly running PSAs on television and radio stations, school gatherings to discuss the legal and social issues relevant to alcohol consumption, randomly administering alcohol tests along major roadways, and other such things that the USA is already doing to limit the negative social impact irresponsible drinking can have?

We can do better. I still think in too many circles alcohol is viewed as somehow cool or as the ultimate social drink; it enjoys this elevated status while simultaneously being one of the most dangerous drinks available. There is a long way to go to re-engineer society so they view alcohol in a different light.

The society that pays some lip service to the dangers of alcohol while celebrating it as the coolest drink, the drink of the elites, the drink of the grow ups, the drink of those who have a life/are social... is the society that will pay a very high price where drunkeness causes death and injury.

On the other hand... the society that decides to have an overall negative view towards alcohol will be more able to avoid those types of scenarios. If we as a society can all decide that alcohol is on the whole not cool and really quite dangerous, I'd imagine we could have a lot of luck enforcing tight regulations/bans on it. But it's going to take a lot of social engineering...

What? So if society came to a consensus that people who feel alcohol ought to be illegal should be criminals, it is your contention that the law rightly ought to dictate that such people belong in prison (to include yourself). And it is further your contention that such a law should be considered legitimately enforceable and fly in the courts by virtue of popular consensus on the matter.

Surely you can see why such a system is problematic now?

I should qualify by saying that is a general guideline. I only mention it in my recognition that you can't attempt something like Prohibition again unless you first get a scenario where there is on the whole great consensus or near-consensus against alcohol. The only thing stopping an alcohol ban is societal attitude I think, too many people think it is cool.

We've just been over this, but it bears repeating: alcohol doesn't cause drunk driving, it causes drunkenness. Irresponsible drinking is not synonymous with drinking, and drunk driving is one of many conceivable consequences of irresponsible drinking.

I feel this is really a technicality. A causes B which causes C, which means A doesn't cause C? If you want to insist on directness than maybe.

But the point is that alcohol gives rise to many unique and highly highly regrettable circumstances that (in the absence of another comparably dangerous or mind-altering substance) WOULDN'T occur in its absence.

In other words, a lot of people only tend to kill other people/injure other people when intoxicated with a mind-altering substance like alcohol. It's WAY too much a stretch to say that an otherwise fine drunk driver who had killed two other people would have done the same thing in the absence of alcohol or other mind-altering substances (what would he have lost control over? Drinking too much Pepsi?).

To a large extent alcohol gives rise to increased probabilities of accident and harm.

Not that I doubt widespread alcoholism would result in a burden on a healthcare system, but source that alcoholism is a significant problem in the US? And again: alcohol causes drunkenness. The state of being drunk impairs peoples' judgment, which can result in something as severe as deciding to drive drunk or something relatively mild, such as deciding to watch bad films. Again, it's about responsible drinking and irresponsible drinking.

It's all very good to say ''it's about keeping control of ourselves... not banning the alcohol... people should be allowed to drink so long as they can control themselves and most people will.'' But when that sizable fraction of people DO lose control over alcohol because we as a society decide to give them that choice... who pays the cost?

Society as a whole in the form of increased expenditures. The families and friends of the injured/killed parties. And the drunk people themselves... most of them are generally harmless and benign people but alcohol has turned them into a risk to others and to themselves.

Is it really worth it to give people this choice? It has to be paid in blood because a ton of people will always lose control...

...so? Caffeine is addictive, gambling is addictive, video games are purportedly addictive, shall we ban them all based on this? What is your point?

I'd say the line crossed would be the degree of health risk and whether or not the substance/activity leads to increased risk of harming others, more aggressive behavior, criminal behavior, loss of self-control.

For example, alcoholics are likely to at some point commit some kind of crime and harm others/themselves because of their intoxication. The same argument would seem absurd when you're talking about caffeine or video games.

Does the behavior, once you become addicted, cause a pretty high degree of loss of self control that can lead to harm to others and harm to society?

[Starkiller101]

The answer is obvious, many people die from smoking, no matter what substance.

Please provide evidence that someone has died from smoking weed.

maybe if they caught them self on fire like in how high

[The American Nuclear Fallout Zone]

No.

[Ifreann]

I expect you would feel different if you knew someone who was injured as a result of drinking-impaired driving...

You reckon? I'd like to think that I'm a rational enough person to realise that, even if my initial emotional reaction is to feel angry towards alcohol, the real fault lies with the drunk driver and their grossly irresponsible choice to drink and drive.

---

Pffft. No. Hell no.

How could I take my communion without wine?

The transubstantiated blood of Christ, of course.

---

Wouldn't that be bitter grape juice?

Grape juice tastes better than wine...

De gustibus non est disputandum

[Ekoridge]

Apologies, stupid public wi-fi network. Glitched out and double posted on me.

[Ekoridge]

I believe in many situations, yes, it should be illegal. Never mind the pathetic enforcement the prohibition act got in the 20's. I've seen way too many people who drink because they think that's the 'cool' thing to do. Though I will admit; the aforementioned people aren't the smartest, nor do they posses proper judgement at the correct times. But I see it as something in parallel with drugs, the only reason is hasn't been banned, is because it has been an accepted and prominent part of society for as far back as many people are willing to remember. Alcohol impairs, just like any drug, so I don't understand why so many people came to see it as something to be drank.

[Ifreann]

I believe in many situations, yes, it should be illegal. Never mind the pathetic enforcement the prohibition act got in the 20's. I've seen way too many people who drink because they think that's the 'cool' thing to do. Though I will admit; the aforementioned people aren't the smartest, nor do they posses proper judgement at the correct times. But I see it as something in parallel with drugs, the only reason is hasn't been banned, is because it has been an accepted and prominent part of society for as far back as many people are willing to remember. Alcohol impairs, just like any drug, so I don't understand why so many people came to see it as something to be drank.

Because it tastes good. Though, I've heard that in the early days of civilisation people would drink beer because it was safer than drinking water. That might have upped its popularity a bit.

[AiliailiA]

Alchohol?

I think you mean Alcohohohol. Endorsed by Santa Claus. Better than flying reindeer. Alcohohohol, the TRUE spirit of Christmas!

[Forster Keys]

It's funny that most of the people on this thread that support making alcohol illegal are citing "conformity" and "social pressure". Really this is a ridiculous argument. If you're an adult you should be able to make your own decisions.

And I'm definitely sensing weird passive-aggressive overtones of "because those damn jocks drink it!", and that people who use substances that you happen to avoid, are somehow beneath you. Don't drink. It's probably a good idea. But just chill out and let live. You'll foster responsible behaviour through example and encouragement rather than a fucking police state.

[Jetan]

and its continued use stands largely as a testament to social pressure and conformity.

Prove it. I drink because I like the taste of Lonkero and because I like being drunk. No one is forcing me.

It and drugs are entirely pointless and serve no beneficial purpose to humanity

Alcohol serves as a way to relax, and in the current society of busy schedules, missed sleep and overworking relaxation is very important.

The sad fact is that blanket prohibition doesn't seem to work in that the target users of alcohol are far too extensive to enforce.

That's everything but sad.

I do not think so. But there are some nuts out there that think that alcohol is deadly poison after one sip and want to ban it. Should it be Illegal?

No offense, but that's kinda stupid of what you said. You have any idea what alcohol has done to families, communities and several others. I don't really understand why people will even support alcoholism.

Alcohol=/=Alcoholism. Do try to think before you speak.

Restricting the decision to take separate substances is separate from the decision to choose to eat certain foods.

No it's not. There is no difference between saying "you can't drink X" and "you can't eat Y".

I expect you would feel different if you knew someone who was injured as a result of drinking-impaired driving...

Fact of the matter is, this ''freedom'' to drink alcohol is soaked in blood. People get hurt and people die for it, just like with guns...

Prohibition won't work in the USA... but only because people are too stubborn with their freedoms and overall just too blind to see that it's socially beneficial to get rid of alcohol overall. Which is why we need to start by hammering it into everyone ''Alcohol is stupid, dangerous, and bad.'' Once we do some social re-engineering then we can consider effectively banning it. The only thing standing in our way is the wrong mentality.

Criminal law should always follow the public consensus which is why I am much more keen on changing our social views on alcohol step by step first.

We could easily use something else that tastes much better and doesn't cause drunk driving as a ''social'' drink, soda or whatever. Alcohol is expensive on the healthcare system and it causes crimes, and like many other things it can be addictive. You have no idea how many lives could be saved if everyone on the whole just had the sense not to drink... if we as a society can believe that alcohol is bad as opposed to cool.

Or how about if we let those people who want to drink, and rest can be sober if they want, m'kay? Novel idea, I know.

It's all about drinking responsibly. A responsible drinker leaves their keys in a bowl at the door. A responsible drinker has a designated driver. A responsible drinker knows their limitations and stays within them. A responsible drinker knows what sort of effects alcohol has on their personality, and knows whether or not to drink based upon this knowledge. A responsible drinker is attentive to their work schedule when they drink.

A responsible drinker is what we ought to assume everyone to be until they prove themselves otherwise.

Exactly. When I go to drink I leave my keys at home, and if I have to drive the following day I count how many drinks I can drink before I start.¨

In an ideal world (if we could get there) where there is no alcohol or where alcohol is more universally vilified

If you don't want to drink that's fine but don't try to push your dystopia on the rest of us.

[Ekoridge]

Stupid network again, my apologies.

[Ekoridge]

It's funny that most of the people on this thread that support making alcohol illegal are citing "conformity" and "social pressure". Really this is a ridiculous argument. If you're an adult you should be able to make your own decisions.

While I cannot speak for others, I can explain for myself. I was referring those immature party-people or even just the guy that just wants to have a good weekend after a stressful work-week. They make their own decisions, but they aren't responsible with their decisions, or they just don't care. It's not the situation of; the jocks drive up in their corvette and ask the nerd, "Hey dude, we're going to have some six packs later, you in?" It's the guy that purposefully made bad decisions because he most often -wants- to be that 'cool' guy he saw in the movies, the guy that's fun at clubs and parties. He wants to brag about how much he had, about how much he can take. It's not always about conformity, but sometimes it is the idea that getting 'hammered' is cool. Adults can make their own decisions, but those decisions are nonetheless influenced by past experiences, media, everything. Other people were raised on the family tradition, and other people might see it as a form of comfort, but I digress.

For me, I never understood the obsession some people have. And when I finally tried some, after years and years of hearing about how good it was, I was severely disappointed. I don't find drinking alcohol is enjoyable, but maybe that's just why I think the way I do.

[Ifreann]

It's funny that most of the people on this thread that support making alcohol illegal are citing "conformity" and "social pressure". Really this is a ridiculous argument. If you're an adult you should be able to make your own decisions.

While I cannot speak for others, I can explain for myself. I was referring those immature party-people or even just the guy that just wants to have a good weekend after a stressful work-week. They make their own decisions, but they aren't responsible with their decisions, or they just don't care. It's not the situation of; the jocks drive up in their corvette and ask the nerd, "Hey dude, we're going to have some six packs later, you in?" It's the guy that purposefully made bad decisions because he most often -wants- to be that 'cool' guy he saw in the movies, the guy that's fun at clubs and parties. He wants to brag about how much he had, about how much he can take. It's not always about conformity, but sometimes it is the idea that getting 'hammered' is cool. Adults can make their own decisions, but those decisions are nonetheless influenced by past experiences, media, everything. Other people were raised on the family tradition, and other people might see it as a form of comfort, but I digress.

For me, I never understood the obsession some people have. And when I finally tried some, after years and years of hearing about how good it was, I was severely disappointed. I don't find drinking alcohol is enjoyable, but maybe that's just why I think the way I do.

Do tell, what exactly did you drink that you feel is representative of the entirety of alcoholic beverages?

[God Kefka]

I expect you would feel different if you knew someone who was injured as a result of drinking-impaired driving...

You reckon? I'd like to think that I'm a rational enough person to realise that, even if my initial emotional reaction is to feel angry towards alcohol, the real fault lies with the drunk driver and their grossly irresponsible choice to drink and drive.

It's all very well to say, drunk drivers are grossly irresponsibly for their choice to drink and drive. But if drinks of the kind were not available and/or universally condemned, that combination would be much more remote combination.

That's what we should strive for. Decrease the probability of gruesome, drunk driver accidents that involve the injuring/killing of innocents.

[Jetan]

You reckon? I'd like to think that I'm a rational enough person to realise that, even if my initial emotional reaction is to feel angry towards alcohol, the real fault lies with the drunk driver and their grossly irresponsible choice to drink and drive.

It's all very well to say, drunk drivers are grossly irresponsibly for their choice to drink and drive. But if drinks of the kind were not available and/or universally condemned, that combination would be much more remote combination.

That's what we should strive for. Decrease the probability of gruesome, drunk driver accidents that involve the injuring/killing of innocents.

What you are advocating for is a nanny state, and that is an extremely bad idea.

[Ifreann]

You reckon? I'd like to think that I'm a rational enough person to realise that, even if my initial emotional reaction is to feel angry towards alcohol, the real fault lies with the drunk driver and their grossly irresponsible choice to drink and drive.

It's all very well to say, drunk drivers are grossly irresponsibly for their choice to drink and drive. But if drinks of the kind were not available and/or universally condemned, that combination would be much more remote combination.

That's what we should strive for. Decrease the probability of gruesome, drunk driver accidents that involve the injuring/killing of innocents.

Certainly we should. By educating people on the dangers of driving under the influence, by enforcing the laws against it, and by building cars in such a way as to minimise the danger posed by crashes of any kind. Not by trying to prevent the consumption of alcohol in general.

[Ekoridge]

Do tell, what exactly did you drink that you feel is representative of the entirety of alcoholic beverages?

A bit of;
Rum, whiskey, wine, beer, and after the margarita I gave up on finding one I liked. Those were all separate and consumed on different days of course, not all in one at one time. Every one of them were nasty, I did try some that was 1/4 lemon juice, 2/4 iced tea and 1/4 rum, and that was decent. Meh, :/

[Herrebrugh]

Definitely

not.

Di'nt expect that, did ya?

[Ifreann]

Do tell, what exactly did you drink that you feel is representative of the entirety of alcoholic beverages?

A bit of;
Rum,

What kind? Straight or with a mixer? If mixed, with what?

whiskey,

What kind? Straight or with a mixer? If mixed, with what?

wine,

What grape? From what country? At what temperature? With what food?

beer,

What kind? From what country? What brand? At what temperature?

And those are just off the top of my head. I imagine connoisseurs could ask about more categories and classifications.

and after the margarita I gave up on finding one I liked.

Well you gave up too soon if you want to claim a thorough exploration.

Those were all separate and consumed on different days of course, not all in one at one time. Every one of them were nasty, I did try some that was 1/4 lemon juice, 2/4 iced tea and 1/4 rum, and that was decent. Meh, :/

Look, I don't really care if you drink or not. That's your prerogative. But you really shouldn't make judgements about alcoholic beverages as a whole, because there are a whole hell of a lot of them, with a huge variety in tastes.

[Luveria]

Definitely

not.

Di'nt expect that, did ya?

Not at all. I was actually expecting it would be spoilerception.

[Ekoridge]

Well you gave up too soon if you want to claim a thorough exploration.

Look, I don't really care if you drink or not. That's your prerogative. But you really shouldn't make judgements about alcoholic beverages as a whole, because there are a whole hell of a lot of them, with a huge variety in tastes.

Rum, Captain Morgan, straight, then the mix I mentioned before.
Wine, I tried both red and white, I don't remember anything else but the white wasn't terrible.
Whiskey, Jack Daniel's, that's all I know
Beer, Budweiser, 'Muricah, cold

I never claimed to be an expert, I claimed to have tried some once and not enjoyed it. Sorry I can't give you more information, but I didn't know there'd be a quiz or else I would've taken notes.

[Lemanrussland]

No. I think even a cursory study of the Prohibition period would lead most people to that conclusion.

It was ineffective at stopping alcoholism (it actually exacerbated the bad social effects of it), and put tons of money into the hands of powerful criminal enterprises, increasing crime dramatically in some places.

[Orham]

But this is the problem... we are not all responsible drivers (even though the law may assume we all are until proven otherwise). When someone gets into that car drunk, drives, and then kills/injures others society and the innocent pay the price.

Even if you wanted to be really technical and insist that alcohol doesn't directly cause drunk driving accidents... it at the very least makes them possible. Without access to alcohol... how does one get into a drunk driving accident?

There are responsible and irresponsible drivers but having alcohol in the picture allows for the possibility of some really bad outcomes. In an ideal world (if we could get there) where there is no alcohol or where alcohol is more universally vilified, we can decrease the probability that someone who drives irresponsibly is paired up with a context where he will be drinking a lot.

This is the scenario we are trying to minimize happening. In the current society, there's too many ways for alcohol to get mixed up with irresponsible drivers.

A huge proportion of people are killed/injured every year due to combinations of alcohol and driving. The present status quo where a ton of people drink a lot at parties because it is considered the social drink... definitely at least plays a part in making this setup happen more often than we would like.

As you've said, not everyone is a responsible driver (even though the law assumes people to be such until they prove otherwise). Innocent people die in automobile accidents every single year, both alcohol-related and otherwise. But what do all automobile accidents have in common? Automobiles. It's simply not possible to find oneself in an automobile accident of any sort in the absence of automobiles, and as a consequence banning automobiles is the most direct solution to this problem.

...are we now prepared to abandon this "Some people misuse 'x', and misuse of 'x' can result in 'y', and 'y' endangers or hurts people, therefore 'x' should be illegal" nonsense? Are we now prepared to acknowledge the difference between a responsible drinker (who ought to be left to drink in peace) and an irresponsible drinker (who ought to face penalties if they endanger or harm other people)? Seriously, "Not every drinker is a responsible one" is not a valid counterargument, and it's unnecessary to deny responsible drinkers their beverages simply because irresponsible drinkers exist.

We can do better. I still think in too many circles alcohol is viewed as somehow cool or as the ultimate social drink; it enjoys this elevated status while simultaneously being one of the most dangerous drinks available. There is a long way to go to re-engineer society so they view alcohol in a different light.

The society that pays some lip service to the dangers of alcohol while celebrating it as the coolest drink, the drink of the elites, the drink of the grow ups, the drink of those who have a life/are social... is the society that will pay a very high price where drunkeness causes death and injury.

On the other hand... the society that decides to have an overall negative view towards alcohol will be more able to avoid those types of scenarios. If we as a society can all decide that alcohol is on the whole not cool and really quite dangerous, I'd imagine we could have a lot of luck enforcing tight regulations/bans on it. But it's going to take a lot of social engineering...

You acknowledge that alcohol can be consumed safely and responsibly, and that there are those who do indeed consume safely and responsibly, yet you (rightly) note that unsafe and irresponsible drinking happens and can have negative consequences. Instead of taking this to mean that society should strive to promote safe and responsible alcohol consumption, you take this to mean that society should seek to condemn alcohol consumption as a wicked act and seek to eradicate alcoholic beverages.

...why?

Besides that, are you actually telling me that you believe it's easier to convince society as a whole to stop drinking entirely, and further to revile alcohol consumption, than it is to convince society as a whole to drink responsibly?

I feel this is really a technicality. A causes B which causes C, which means A doesn't cause C? If you want to insist on directness than maybe.

Look, your reasoning is sound, but your facts are all wrong. It's true, this argument does indeed hold:

A
A ----> B
B ----> C
-----------
C

Let's plug in the following:

A = Consume alcohol
B = Experience drunkenness
C = Drive a car

I'm perfectly fine with the second premise in that case. It's pretty solidly demonstrated that alcohol consumption leads to drunkenness, so that case of entailment is demonstrably true. Here's the problem: I dispute the third premise, the case of entailment between B and C, when you plug in "Consume alcohol" for A, "Experience drunkenness" for B, and "Drive a car" for C. The case of entailment simply isn't there. Someone who gets drunk might drive, but being drunk doesn't entail driving. There's no "If...Then" relationship between the two.

In short, because B doesn't cause C your argument falls apart at the seams.

To a large extent alcohol gives rise to increased probabilities of accident and harm.

...and we're back to banning automobiles.

It's all very good to say ''it's about keeping control of ourselves... not banning the alcohol... people should be allowed to drink so long as they can control themselves and most people will.'' But when that sizable fraction of people DO lose control over alcohol because we as a society decide to give them that choice... who pays the cost?

Society as a whole in the form of increased expenditures. The families and friends of the injured/killed parties. And the drunk people themselves... most of them are generally harmless and benign people but alcohol has turned them into a risk to others and to themselves.

Is it really worth it to give people this choice? It has to be paid in blood because a ton of people will always lose control...

I really can't say it any more clearly: the arrow in premise 3 doesn't belong there, so your argument about drunk driving doesn't work.

I'd say the line crossed would be the degree of health risk and whether or not the substance/activity leads to increased risk of harming others, more aggressive behavior, criminal behavior, loss of self-control.

For example, alcoholics are likely to at some point commit some kind of crime and harm others/themselves because of their intoxication. The same argument would seem absurd when you're talking about caffeine or video games.

Two things:

1. Source the claim about alcoholics and criminality.
2. Alcohol consumption doesn't necessarily result in alcoholism, so all you've done here is add to your pile of non-functioning premises.