Should Alchohol be Illegal?

[God Kefka]

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.

Well I think everything needs to be qualified. Difference between alcohol and cars? Cars are absolutely fundamental to the functioning
of the modern world/modern economy and we simply cannot have an economically productive society without them. So banning them is not really on the table...

Almost everyone drives to go to work where they can't walk and public transit isn't that great in so many places. The only pragmatic option is to keep the car for now.

However, society can function better as a whole if we reach a stronger consensus that alcohol is bad and refrain from its use. Society as a whole will move on and adapt for the better. No more drunk driving accidents...

The day you come up with something that works better than cars and is a lot safer and more cost-effective... I'll advocate that cars be banned too. Until then, as much as I might want to, there are other things in the way.

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.

Well the problem with a scenario where we say alcohol is all cool, it's dangerous but you are free to try it and have that stuff at parties and we are not going to condemn it as a society is that... well, the status quo creates too many situations where people get intoxicated and then go out and kill people in drunk driving accidents and stuff. Like I said, it's all very good and well to say ''people have a choice, most people will choose to drink responsibly'' and then realize that's always the innocents who are paying the price in blood for the minority of people who don't. Best to cut off the whole rotten tree...

Alcohol consumption should not be viewed as a wicked act... just as an act that's on the whole irresponsible and in very bad taste. Ideally it would be great if upon hearing that Joe drinks alcohol on a regular basis the average citizen shudders and has a similar reaction that's somewhere between contemporary attitudes towards people who drink Chinese medicine for the lolz and attitudes towards people who take extremely dangerous and over-the-top mind-altering substances just to look ''cool''. I'm not sure I would call it ''wicked'' per say, but ideally I should want it to be considered stupid, reprehensible, irresponsible, deviant, and dangerous.

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?

It's not easier but it's the better goal to strive for. Because the long-term pay offs are much higher and countless unborn innocents will be saved in the future.

''Convincing society as a whole to drink responsibly'' is a bit of a lazy unambitious cop-out. People don't like to hear that their worldviews, assumptions, and beliefs could be re-engineered/revised for a better tomorrow. But hey I'm just talking about how we can make the world a better place, if the majority of people in places like the USA and Europe aren't smart enough to see what I'm talking about or insist on having bad taste (liking alcohol and stuff)... then this isn't going anywhere.

But I get to keep saying ''I told you so'' every single time someone dies or gets hurt.

Freedom to drink is no consolation to the families and friends of victims whose lives are destroyed by alcohol/alcohol-induced violence.

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.

Well in this case C would not just be ''drive a car''... it would be ''drive a car with a degree of impaired self-control'' and then there would be D which is some kind of accident.

But this is getting a bit over-theoretical. The point is that drunk-driver accidents hurt and kill a ton of people every year. You can argue that in the absence of alcohol there would be other types of driver accidents occurring but you can't possibly argue these would be drunk driver accidents (where's the alcohol in a no alcohol society?).

So it really goes more like a chain of events in which alcohol plays an irreplaceable role amongst several factors (except by other mind-altering substances which we should also crack down on). Mental impairment by dangerous substances you know...

While it doesn't exclusively cause drunk driver accidents, alcohol is an irreplaceable element in the causal chain. No alcohol... no possibility of drunk-driver accidents. Seems a bit obvious really it's all in the definition...

That's really all I was getting at.

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

I don't think banning alcohol is comparable to banning cars. Unless you show me why banning alcohol would completely destroy our way of life and our modern economic system.

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.

Just keep it simple... You need to alcohol to cause drunk driver accidents. No alcohol... no drunk driver accidents cause you can't get drunk.

Now we just need to figure out how to get rid of the alcohol, and I've given you a suggestion.

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.

[/quote]


1.

http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/learn-ab ... -and-crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism
''The social problems arising from alcoholism are serious, caused by the pathological changes in the brain and the intoxicating effects of alcohol.[31][46] Alcohol abuse is associated with an increased risk of committing criminal offences, including child abuse, domestic violence, rape, burglary and assault...''

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1605003376
''Traffic deaths and injuries are among the most frequent causes of deaths and disability worldwide. In the United States, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that approximately 40% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related...''

Just a preliminary search. But alcohol is clearly causing deaths here...

2. The fact that alcohol CAN lead to alcoholism, a form of addiction in which people can be prone to violent behavior, is sufficient reason for society to act against the availability of this dangerous thing.

[Pacifornia]

Need I post a post a link to the Valentine's Day massacre that went down during prohibition? People would resort to circumventing the law and it would not end up well.

[God Kefka]

Need I post a post a link to the Valentine's Day massacre that went down during prohibition? People would resort to circumventing the law and it would not end up well.

which is why we need to change the social consensus first...

[Pacifornia]

Need I post a post a link to the Valentine's Day massacre that went down during prohibition? People would resort to circumventing the law and it would not end up well.

which is why we need to change the social consensus first...

Well I sure won't abide by it. The drinker should know what he's signing up for and should learn how his body will react to the drink. Education is much better than prohibition since it lets people decide their fate. Driving drunk is stupid and many many people know that. If I were drunk I would still have what little rationality have to know that I should forfeit my keys to a friend and sleep over at their place.

[God Kefka]

which is why we need to change the social consensus first...

Well I sure won't abide by it. The drinker should know what he's signing up for and should learn how his body will react to the drink. Education is much better than prohibition since it lets people decide their fate. Driving drunk is stupid and many many people know that. If I were drunk I would still have what little rationality have to know that I should forfeit my keys to a friend and sleep over at their place.

well in an ideal world everyone would decide only their fate...

Problem is, people who drink a lot often end up inadvertently destroying the fates of other people.

The innocents always pay for the choice of the irresponsible...

[Risottia]

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sheer awesomeness of my Barolo.

Also, I'm pretty sure "bajó" means "he lowered".

In this context it means "down with".

Shouldn't that be "bajo" without the accent? Or "abajo"?

[Shofercia]

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?

*drinks*

What was the question?

[Pacifornia]

In this context it means "down with".

Shouldn't that be "bajo" without the accent? Or "abajo"?

That typo was thanks to the autocorrect for Spanish on my iPhone.

[Orham]

Well I think everything needs to be qualified. Difference between alcohol and cars? Cars are absolutely fundamental to the functioning
of the modern world/modern economy and we simply cannot have an economically productive society without them. So banning them is not really on the table...

Almost everyone drives to go to work where they can't walk and public transit isn't that great in so many places. The only pragmatic option is to keep the car for now.

However, society can function better as a whole if we reach a stronger consensus that alcohol is bad and refrain from its use. Society as a whole will move on and adapt for the better. No more drunk driving accidents...

The day you come up with something that works better than cars and is a lot safer and more cost-effective... I'll advocate that cars be banned too. Until then, as much as I might want to, there are other things in the way.

So the only reason you oppose banning automobiles entirely is because it is impractical to do so. The fact that there are responsible drivers, the fact that responsible driving can be promoted, the fact that safety features for vehicles can be continually improved, the fact that traffic laws can be established and enforced as necessary, none of these things factor into your decision to oppose banning automobiles. It's just that banning automobiles isn't practical.

I think you completely missed my point. The point is that alcohol, like driving in general, may be done safely or unsafely. That was supposed to lead you to conclude that those which operate automobiles irresponsibly should be held accountable for doing so, while those which operate automobiles responsibly ought to be allowed to continue to do so undeterred.

Well the problem with a scenario where we say alcohol is all cool, it's dangerous but you are free to try it and have that stuff at parties and we are not going to condemn it as a society is that... well, the status quo creates too many situations where people get intoxicated and then go out and kill people in drunk driving accidents and stuff. Like I said, it's all very good and well to say ''people have a choice, most people will choose to drink responsibly'' and then realize that's always the innocents who are paying the price in blood for the minority of people who don't. Best to cut off the whole rotten tree...

No. It's better to strive to promote responsible drinking, to enable police forces to better detect and respond to impaired drivers, and to improve vehicle safety standards. It's better to treat the population like thinking adults, and to take that status (and the privileges it confers) away from those who prove themselves unworthy to bear it, than to treat the entire population like they're children.

It's better to blame drunk drivers for drunk driving than it is to blame alcoholic beverages, and to hold them accountable for its existence therefore. Why? Because that's the reality of the situation: people who decide to drive drunk are responsible for drunk driving and its effects, not alcoholic beverages.

Alcohol consumption should not be viewed as a wicked act... just as an act that's on the whole irresponsible and in very bad taste. Ideally it would be great if upon hearing that Joe drinks alcohol on a regular basis the average citizen shudders and has a similar reaction that's somewhere between contemporary attitudes towards people who drink Chinese medicine for the lolz and attitudes towards people who take extremely dangerous and over-the-top mind-altering substances just to look ''cool''. I'm not sure I would call it ''wicked'' per say, but ideally I should want it to be considered stupid, reprehensible, irresponsible, deviant, and dangerous.

You want people to view alcohol consumption itself as irresponsible, which is incorrect since alcohol consumption is not itself inherently an irresponsible act. You want people to consider alcohol consumption to be stupid even though it is not inherently so. You want people to consider alcohol consumption dangerous even though responsible drinking isn't.

That's asking people to accept a black-and-white vision of reality, forgoing all nuance and consideration of circumstances.

''Convincing society as a whole to drink responsibly'' is a bit of a lazy unambitious cop-out. People don't like to hear that their worldviews, assumptions, and beliefs could be re-engineered/revised for a better tomorrow. But hey I'm just talking about how we can make the world a better place, if the majority of people in places like the USA and Europe aren't smart enough to see what I'm talking about or insist on having bad taste (liking alcohol and stuff)... then this isn't going anywhere.

But I get to keep saying ''I told you so'' every single time someone dies or gets hurt.

Only in your black-and-white, X or Y, all or nothing vision of reality does this hold true. And really, you don't even have the causation right, so it's a false vision in two distinct ways.

Well in this case C would not just be ''drive a car''... it would be ''drive a car with a degree of impaired self-control'' and then there would be D which is some kind of accident.

...did you even understand my argument?

But this is getting a bit over-theoretical. The point is that drunk-driver accidents hurt and kill a ton of people every year. You can argue that in the absence of alcohol there would be other types of driver accidents occurring but you can't possibly argue these would be drunk driver accidents (where's the alcohol in a no alcohol society?).

So it really goes more like a chain of events in which alcohol plays an irreplaceable role amongst several factors (except by other mind-altering substances which we should also crack down on). Mental impairment by dangerous substances you know...

While it doesn't exclusively cause drunk driver accidents, alcohol is an irreplaceable element in the causal chain. No alcohol... no possibility of drunk-driver accidents. Seems a bit obvious really it's all in the definition...

That's really all I was getting at.

...nope. You didn't understand my argument at all. Let me explain. A case of entailment represents an "if...then" relationship between two or more things. For example, our second premise in the original argument:

A ----> B

That reads as "If A is true, then B is true", so if we plug in "Consume alcohol" and "Experience drunkenness", what it says is "If one consumes alcohol, they will experience drunkenness". That's a fact, it's demonstrably true. Now let's look at the entire argument:

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

That says "Assuming A, and that if A is true then B is also true, and that if B is true then C is also true, we can conclude that C is true." That logically holds. However, if we plug in "Consume alcohol" for A, "Experience drunkenness" for B, and "Drive a car" for C, the case of entailment stated by the third premise (B ---> C) is demonstrably untrue. Experiencing drunkenness does not cause one to drive, though drunk people may drive and will be impaired if they do so.

I can't make it any simpler, Kefka. There's no causal relationship between alcohol consumption and drunk driving. Drunk drivers are to be held accountable for drunk driving, not alcoholic beverages or the experience of drunkenness. That's the argument I've put forward.

Just keep it simple... You need to alcohol to cause drunk driver accidents. No alcohol... no drunk driver accidents cause you can't get drunk.

Yes, keep it simple indeed. Blame drunk drivers for drunk driving rather than alcoholic beverages themselves.

Now we just need to figure out how to get rid of the alcohol, and I've given you a suggestion.

The fact that alcohol CAN lead to alcoholism, a form of addiction in which people can be prone to violent behavior, is sufficient reason for society to act against the availability of this dangerous thing.

Sure, by informing people about the dangers of alcohol abuse, regulating its sale and consumption, establishing laws against operating motor vehicles under its influence, and by enforcing stiff penalties against violation of either standard.

[Luveria]

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?

I just got home after drinking with my landlord, so no shit drinking should be legal.

[Wintersun]

Ban rubbing alcohol. It tastes horrible, doesn't get you drunk quick enough, and gives the worst hangover ever!

[God Kefka]

So the only reason you oppose banning automobiles entirely is because it is impractical to do so. The fact that there are responsible drivers, the fact that responsible driving can be promoted, the fact that safety features for vehicles can be continually improved, the fact that traffic laws can be established and enforced as necessary, none of these things factor into your decision to oppose banning automobiles. It's just that banning automobiles isn't practical.

I think you completely missed my point. The point is that alcohol, like driving in general, may be done safely or unsafely. That was supposed to lead you to conclude that those which operate automobiles irresponsibly should be held accountable for doing so, while those which operate automobiles responsibly ought to be allowed to continue to do so undeterred.

I can qualify further but I really want to move away from this point because I just don't think that a ban on alcohol has much to do with a theoretical ban on cars in the future where other hypothetical technologies exist etc... There are too many hypotheticals that have to be assumed in such a case that it would just be strange to discuss it in more detail because the discussion would become entirely too far removed from reality.

But to emphasize the main thing I want to say on this... Just because I support a situation where alcohol could be banned with a high degree of public consensus... doesn't mean I necessarily have to support a ban on cars in all and every situation. The two don't exactly map on to each other and in the present case they definitely don't... because cars are essential to the functioning of the modern economy, they are functionally irreplaceable. There is nothing in the alcoholic drink that has a counterpart to this... it is in no conceivable way functionally irreplaceable as a matter of absolute necessity. The only major barrier standing in our way is cultural... we have a strange respect for the drink that is founded more on tradition than reason, peer conformity than productive thinking etc etc etc... We can work to eradicate that and not suffer immediate and irreparable negative functional consequences. Banning cars? There's a lot more standing in the way... it is functionally irreplaceable right now.

No. It's better to strive to promote responsible drinking, to enable police forces to better detect and respond to impaired drivers, and to improve vehicle safety standards. It's better to treat the population like thinking adults, and to take that status (and the privileges it confers) away from those who prove themselves unworthy to bear it, than to treat the entire population like they're children.

It's better to blame drunk drivers for drunk driving than it is to blame alcoholic beverages, and to hold them accountable for its existence therefore.

Why is is better? Why is it better that we should have a society where people have more ''freedom'' to drink a potentially dangerous substance at the cost of a large number of people every year being killed/injured in drunk driver accidents?

You see I don't like your argument because you are privileging the freedom of the masses over preventing the deaths of innocents. I think when I'm looking at running a society, my priority should be on generating modes of social consensus and law-enforcement mechanisms that optimize good, healthy and productive lives and minimizes deaths and injuries... especially of those of innocent people. I don't particularly care about freedom and especially not if it stands in the way of policies that can save innocent lives.

If we have no alcohol and this is enforced through a combination of social consensus and law enforcement... then it follows logically that there would be less drunk driver accidents/no drunk driver accidents.... less alcohol-induced violent crimes/no alcohol-induced violent crimes. This means that more innocent people are saved and protected. Who CARES if the freedom is lost by the vast majority to drink a particular type of beverage??? Especially since if we are at the point where we've implemented this ban and succeeded... we have clearly reached the stage where there IS this consensus that alcohol is bad and you don't want to drink it. At this point, the people effectively stand behind me in limiting this worthless freedom in the name of saving lives.

Why should we continue to settle for pathetic compromises (''educate the masses,'' drunk-driver rehab, police patrol, insufficient regulations) that are RESPONSES to alcohol violence when we could move to a preemptive strategy that is better? Even you concede that under the current regime we would probably NEVER completely get rid of alcohol induced accidents and crimes.

Your system is one where we must constantly live in fear and worry that someone else's choice (irresponsible drinking) could cost us OUR lives or the lives of innocent people. Where government can only RESPOND to accidents after they happen and take incomplete measures in advance.

It seems to me that you are willing to allow a fraction of people to be killed pointlessly every year in alcohol-related events just so the masses can have this precious freedom to drink. This approach effectively cheapens the lives of the victims killed every year and treats the prevention of future victims as a SUBSERVIENT priority to keeping a pointless freedom for the majority of people. You are creating a system where every year you might as well actively find and cut up a fraction of your people and offer them to the Drunk Gods.

But tell me, in a society without alcohol... HOW will you have alcohol induced accidents and crimes? See what I mean?

Why should we not try to create a society with a consensus that alcohol is bad and one that can enforce an effective ban... if that results in the loss of a freedom (which wouldn't matter at that point because we have that consensus that doesn't value that freedom) but in which tragedies and loss of life are prevented?

Why? Because that's the reality of the situation: people who decide to drive drunk are responsible for drunk driving and its effects, not alcoholic beverages.

You want people to view alcohol consumption itself as irresponsible, which is incorrect since alcohol consumption is not itself inherently an irresponsible act. You want people to consider alcohol consumption to be stupid even though it is not inherently so. You want people to consider alcohol consumption dangerous even though responsible drinking isn't.

That's asking people to accept a black-and-white vision of reality, forgoing all nuance and consideration of circumstances.

I don't care HOW the people come to the consensus that alcohol is bad and you shouldn't drink this so long as they get there. If this means believing in falsehoods and lies then so be it. So be it if that means we can get rid of alcohol, causing no majority of people a discomfort (because they wouldn't want the drink), set into action a chain of strong cultural tradition that abhors alcohol, and sets us forward to a society free from drunk driver accidents and alcohol-induced crime.

It is not through the truth that we always move forward. Sometimes you have to lie to the people... and do it well. It is better that everyone believes in a lie if that lie leads to the better, more just, and safe society... than to live in a society where everyone knows the truth but that is the avenue through which death, destruction, unpredictability, and innocent deaths occur.

I only care about the results... and even if someday people figure out that their preconceptions about alcohol are wrong past the consensus and past the ban, it won't matter. The force of culture would have ingrained in them a habit that abhors alcohol... this instinct will need no rational justification. Just like how it is a cultural impulse for many segments in the USA to want to own guns but such a cultural impulse does not exist in Japan. It is not reason but CULTURE and tradition that shape much of our behavior. If we establish a tradition that alcohol is bad and there is general consensus on this tradition... even where the original facts that lead to the formation of this particular tradition become questionable or even entirely false... it matters not for the work of the tradition is done through the culture it has created.

Just think of it as the reverse of the present situation. Right now the FACTS say on the whole that you should't drink alcohol... that the risks on the whole outweigh the benefits. Yet the CULTURE and the TRADITION are stronger forces... we still drink at parties, we have certain associations between alcohol and elitism/respect, we see it as maturity, we see it as a ''social'' drink... THIS is what I am talking about.

In the society we can create... we can create a sort of reverse situation. Where regardless of the current understanding of the facts, the culture and the tradition, being the stronger forces, instill an anti-alcoholic ethos. It doesn't matter HOW we reached that ethos... just that we reach it (we can reach it by teaching people truths or falsehoods). At the point of the maturation of the the ethos no amount of factual disproving of the original logic leading to the creation of the ethos would matter... because the culture has too much momentum at that point. Only a strong counter-cultural movement and a strong counter-factual movement can be a threat, and the state, the police, and the morality police can work together to always mitigate that by reminding them of all the innocent lives saved.

...nope. You didn't understand my argument at all. Let me explain. A case of entailment represents an "if...then" relationship between two or more things. For example, our second premise in the original argument:

A ----> B

That reads as "If A is true, then B is true", so if we plug in "Consume alcohol" and "Experience drunkenness", what it says is "If one consumes alcohol, they will experience drunkenness". That's a fact, it's demonstrably true. Now let's look at the entire argument:

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

That says "Assuming A, and that if A is true then B is also true, and that if B is true then C is also true, we can conclude that C is true." That logically holds. However, if we plug in "Consume alcohol" for A, "Experience drunkenness" for B, and "Drive a car" for C, the case of entailment stated by the third premise (B ---> C) is demonstrably untrue. Experiencing drunkenness does not cause one to drive, though drunk people may drive and will be impaired if they do so.

I can't make it any simpler, Kefka. There's no causal relationship between alcohol consumption and drunk driving. Drunk drivers are to be held accountable for drunk driving, not alcoholic beverages or the experience of drunkenness. That's the argument I've put forward.

I don't care about causality if that's how you want to define or understand causality (which is esoteric, narrow and overly legalistic/theoretical in my view).

I've never suggested that alcoholic drinks have independent wills and are living entities that compel people to get into cars and kill people. Of course there is always some element of volition from the part of those people to drink in the first place and drive. This is getting into the strange territory where it's really similar to how anti-gun-control people would start talking about how guns don't kill people, people kill people. My response... I don't care about arguing that.

Let us not stray from the point... I am not interested in some narrow construction of the concept of ''causality.'' See you would look at a situation where a person took a gun, shot another person and then say that gun did not ''cause'' the death. I would use a general notion of causality and just say... ''well the gun played a role in the causal chain... a critical role.''

In this case, ''the alcohol played a role in the causal chain... a critical role.''

Just tell me... how do you propose people would die in drunk driver accidents and alcohol induced violence if we don't have alcohol? You can't have those scenarios. Therefore, getting rid of alcohol completely is a way to approach the problem.

Look if there was some kind of magical mechanism where if anyone does something stupid with the choice they are given no one else has to pay for it and they are just immediately zapped out of existence... then I would throw FULL support behind keeping individual liberties to the max and having a ton of alcohol education and leave it at that.

But we don't live in such a magical world. Ours is a world where innocents continually pay for the mistakes and choices of idiots. We have to take away the tools to minimize the degree to which innocents are susceptible to being hurt/killed by the choices of idiots/evil people. In this case, I see one of those tools as being alcohol.

Alcohol does not ''cause'' drunk driver accidents in your interpretation of causality, but it does play a role in the general sense. Also, it plays an indispensable role. Without alcohol... no one can die in drunk driver accidents ok?

Yes, keep it simple indeed. Blame drunk drivers for drunk driving rather than alcoholic beverages themselves.

Now we just need to figure out how to get rid of the alcohol, and I've given you a suggestion.

Your solution would continue to allow a large number of people every single year to be killed in drunk-driver accidents and alcohol-induced crimes. Again, you are privileging freedom over saving human lives. You are advocating that a minority of people be killed every year as a tribute to the Drunk Gods, in exchange that the majority can enjoy freedom to drink while putting out token measures to combat the problem (''educate the drivers, ''rehab them,'' ''just a bit more officers'' etc)... even where you don't advocate this, this is logically where your position has to lead because you seem to concede we can never completely eradicate misuse of alcohol through your approach. Your strategy effectively compels society and the government to sit back and always on the whole be forced to RESPOND to the actions that can come from any direction in society. You put us on the defensive when we could go on the offensive and take the problem out in its entirety.

I should be satisfied that a fraction of people every year be killed in drunk driver accidents because... because this means most of us can drink alcohol and be free to do so? And we don't need to feel bad about any of this right since we are technically doing something... you know, educating drivers and stuff... even though when people will still slip up from time to time because alcohol is everywhere and get in a car and do stupid stuff and we can't reliably preempt all such cases with this weak-willed strategy.

Why should we focus on personal choice... when the personal choice of one person affects the fate of not just himself but often the fate of other innocent lives? When that person decides to drink and drive... who does he hurt... innocents in addition to himself I tell you. So WHAT was the value in giving this choice to a large segment of people? When if anyone makes a mistake with that freedom in the large segment of people they cause not only themselves suffering... but suffering to people who are innocent bystanders and have nothing to do with that personal choice?

Sure, by informing people about the dangers of alcohol abuse, regulating its sale and consumption, establishing laws against operating motor vehicles under its influence, and by enforcing stiff penalties against violation of either standard.

So long as alcohol continues to be out there in massive numbers at parties and social events... it will keep happening from time to time because people will screw it up from time to time. And every single time more often than not, innocents will pay the price for those slip ups.

The freedom you are advocating is one soaked in the blood of innocents... I see no reason to privilege individual choice over saving lives when the decisions of individual choice often affect other people who had no say (did a victim of drunk driving who was walking and gets hit by a car ASK for this through choice? No... he paid for someone else's choice).

So long as alcohol is out there, it will keep happening I tell you.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I'll jump in at the end because you've sort of summarized yourself here.

So long as alcohol continues to be out there in massive numbers at parties and social events... it will keep happening from time to time because people will screw it up from time to time. And every single time more often than not, innocents will pay the price for those slip ups.

The freedom you are advocating is one soaked in the blood of innocents... I see no reason to privilege individual choice over saving lives when the decisions of individual choice often affect other people who had no say (did a victim of drunk driving who was walking and gets hit by a car ASK for this through choice? No... he paid for someone else's choice).

So long as alcohol is out there, it will keep happening I tell you.

The thing is, it's going to keep happening (ie. people doing dumb things and accidently killing others) without alcohol as well, legalized or illegalized whether or not alcohol is being used. Let's relook at the 1920's; prohibition did not work. It was hopelessly flawed from the beginning. Let's look at the present day, the war on drugs is not working to keep drugs off the streets. When people can't legally buy drugs, what do they do? They make them, or they find somebody else who did. And the problems here of backyard drug labs are obvious, no regulation, no guarantee to safety, no certainty about the final materials in the drink. Look overseas to the south east Asian tourist hotspots; many vendors there make their own alcohol and it's a death-trap because there's generally a very high methanol content in what they create. So from this, we can see that banning alcohol will in no way guarantee that the drink driving rate will be lowered plus the health system will now be overloaded by people drinking badly mixed alcohol that's almost petrol.

On the side note, alcohol is not the sole cause in these accidents. Drinking alcohol does not mean you are going to kill somebody, alcohol is never a direct cause in somebody's death. We do not ban things because they have a potential to be misused, we only restrict their usage to people who we trust to use it responsibly. That is already how we treat alcohol.

[Yorkopolis]

Why is is better? Why is it better that we should have a society where people have more ''freedom'' to drink a potentially dangerous substance at the cost of a large number of people every year being killed/injured in drunk driver accidents?

Because, if we ban alcohol for being a "potentially dangerous substance", or just "potentially dangerous" in general, then I suppose we should just be banning everything already, because everything we do, is potentially dangerous.

You see I don't like your argument because you are privileging the freedom of the masses over preventing the deaths of innocents. I think when I'm looking at running a society, my priority should be on generating modes of social consensus and law-enforcement mechanisms that optimize good, healthy and productive lives and minimizes deaths and injuries... especially of those of innocent people. I don't particularly care about freedom and especially not if it stands in the way of policies that can save innocent lives.

As I said before; by all means educate people about the risks of alcohol and blame the drunk drivers themselves for what they did, instead of blaming it on a drink. People go drinking? Fine. People go drinking and then decide to step into the car? Not fine, but not the fault of the drink. The drink's a drink, not some poisonous substance you'd see in a Harry Potter movie of sorts. Yes, it contains ethanol, now is that so horrible? Is that oh-so sinful?

If we have no alcohol and it this is enforced through a combination of social consensus and law enforcement... then it follows logically that there would be less drunk driver accidents/no drunk driver accidents.... less alcohol-induced violent crimes/no alcohol-induced violent crimes. This means that more innocent people are saved and protected. Who CARES if the freedom is lost by the vast majority to drink a particular type of beverage??? Especially since if we are at the point where we've implemented this ban and succeeded... we have clearly reached the stage where there IS this consensus that alcohol is bad and you don't want to drink it. At this point, the people effectively stand behind me in limiting this worthless freedom in the name of saving lives.

Again, if we ban alcohol we're only attacking the symptoms, not the disease; the drunk drivers themselves are responsible for what they did, not a drink. How the flying fuck can a drink, an inanimate substance, get people to decide "hey let's drive drunk"? People themselves decide to drive after having drunk, a drink does not.

Why should we continue to settle for pathetic compromises (''educate the masses,'' drunk-driver rehab, police patrol, insufficient regulations) that are RESPONSES to alcohol violence when we could move to a preemptive strategy that is better? Even you concede that under the current regime we would probably NEVER completely get rid of alcohol induced accidents and crimes.

Why should we settle for moronic, authoritarian ideas ("uu omg lez ban alcohol 'caus its causd lots of crym") when the preemptive strategy of educating the people about the risks and actually blaming the drunk drivers themselves instead of being morons and blaming a drink? When can your mind get past that point?

Your system is one where we must constantly live in fear and worry that someone else's choice (irresponsible drinking) could cost us OUR lives or the lives of innocent people. Where government can only RESPOND to accidents after they happen and take incomplete measures in advance.

And your system is one where we must constantly live in fear and worry because the government chose to ban drinks some people tend to like, with penalties that could cost us OUR lives or the lives of innocent people who just wanted to have a drink? I can tell you, alcohol-free wine, alcohol-free rum, alcohol-free whatever more, tastes god-awful, so don't go around smearing that in my face.

It seems to me that you are willing to allow a fraction of people to be killed pointlessly every year in alcohol-related events just so the masses can have this precious freedom to drink. This approach effectively cheapens the lives of the victims killed every year and treats the prevention of future victims as a SUBSERVIENT priority to keeping a pointless freedom for the majority of people. You are creating a system where every year you might as well actively find and cut up a fraction of your people and offer them to the Drunk Gods.

It seems to me that you are willing to allow masses of people to be killed pointlessly every year in alcohol-related events just because some crazed nuts decided that alcohol should be illegal because it was potentially dangerous. This approach not only effectively cheapens the lives of the victims, nor does it only take away freedom of choice, it also treats other, more-effective solutions as a subservient priority to keeping a pointless ban for the majority of people. You are creating a system where every year you might as well actively find and cut up masses of your people and offer them to Death, because they decided to take a drink.

But tell me, in a society without alcohol... HOW will you have alcohol induced accidents and crimes? See what I mean?

See here, you may be thinking right, but then again, you're also thinking wrongly. In the Middle East, where there hasn't been alcohol in more than 1400 years, nobody has a desire to drink it. However, in the West, where we have known alcohol since the dawn of time, banning it would be not only extremely retarded, but result in lots of crimes and, I could see this happening, the rise of Al Capone all the way back to life.

Why should we not try to create a society with a consensus that alcohol is bad and one that can enforce an effective ban... if that results in the loss of a freedom (which wouldn't matter at that point because we have that consensus that doesn't value that freedom) but in which tragedies and loss of life are prevented?

Tell me, please, with a real source, how many alcohol-related incidents per year you hear of? I hear of few. Sure some horrible, tragic ones happen, they sure do, not going to deny that, but just because of some incidents, does that mean we should be attacking alcohol.

[God Kefka]

Ok well this is getting a bit circular and we've really gone off the mark somehow so let me try to summarize what I take to be the main points of your inquiries to my proposal and we can work it out to a more productive result. I am going to try and be as concise as I can so in the process I could misconstrue some points, feel free to correct.

My suggestion
We work to create a social consensus against alcohol and then we enforce an effective ban after that consensus is reached in large part. This would then eliminate/almost completely eliminate all drunk-driver/alcohol-induced accidents/crimes. This approach would save innocent lives every year.

You
You are blaming the wrong party for this... strictly speaking, alcohol does not kill people, people kill people. People's decisions on how to use alcohol kill people, not the alcohol itself. Your approach blames the wrong entity... you are blaming the alcohol itself rather than the actual irresponsible drivers.

What I should have said in response to keep it tied to my above Suggestion
I am not interested in correctly assigning blame. This is not about ''blaming'' the right group, it's about saving innocent lives. If you take away the alcohol, then there is no opportunity whatsoever for anyone to make a mistake and kill/injure others in alcohol-related incidents. We've saved lives and taken away the alcohol-related deaths/injuries.

This is not about assigning blame. I don't think my approach even necessarily blames alcohol in the same sense that you blame particular individuals for their crimes. All I've observed is that having alcohol on the table allows for too many situations every year where someone makes a mistake and innocent people die. This is why I want to take the alcohol off the table...

I am not taking it off the table necessarily because I think blame should be assigned to alcohol... I am taking it off because it is an irreplaceable part of the causal chain leading up to the tragedies of alcohol-related deaths/injuries.

This policy is about saving lives... not assigning moral blame.

I hope this clears up the SUPER CONVOLUTED round-about talks about causality and blame... We've hopefully already moved away from the comparison between cars ban and alcohol ban which you raised. Again, I don't see that as illustrating anything absurd. My position is still consistent, if we can all agree that a certain consensus on something and a ban on something would lead to less innocents being killed... then I would support the action against that thing. The objective is not to assign moral blame to that thing even though it could look like that... the object is to save lives. So even where moral blame is incorrectly assigned, I don't care.

Now if you showed me how the approach did NOT save innocent lives... THAT I would care about. So maybe you want to go there instead. Which leads to this...

Do you dispute that in a situation where society reaches a moral consensus on against alcohol and where an effective ban on alcohol could be enforced... that LESS people would be killed/injured in random accidents as compared to the status quo?

If you want to dispute it, it's fair because this is a hypothetical and it's not like we can say for sure one way or another. But I would say by common sense this would seem to be case. Especially as I have shown you a source earlier that showed that up to 40% of highway accidents in the USA have links to inappropriate alcohol consumption. Surely if alcohol was less available, this would suggest that a large number of current rates of accidents could and is likely to go down?

Now here's your counter-proposal...

We should focus on educating drivers, imposing stiff penalties on drivers who break the law or drink too much, educate people about the dangers of alcohol consumption, put more police officers out there, regulate a bit more on production and distribution... KEEP the freedom for the vast majority of the people to drink and take no measures to create this consensus against alcohol consumption.

This just looks to me to be too much like the status quo.

I also don't like it because the alcohol is still out there in the parties, socials, and too many places. People are still going to make those mistakes because you allow for the conditions in which they can make those mistakes (you have not taken away the alcohol). You also can't preempt accidents very well because anyone could potentially be a drunk driver any time.

Do you really think this proposal will end up SAVING MORE LIVES than my approach? Because this is really all I care about. You think you will see more of those 40% of accidents in which heavy alcohol consumption is in the mix PREMPTED/NOT HAPPENING in your plan vs in my plan?

I would think that IF we get the society that has a general consensus against alcohol and that has effective enforcement of the alcohol ban... that this has the better result in this regard.

Would you disagree?

Now of course, you can always tell me that the situation you are suggesting where there is this ''consensus'' and a ''ban'' can't be achieved. It's not realistic.

You could make a case for that and for all we know you could be right. It is a hypothetical, and an idealized hypothetical I think we should strive for. On paper though, it seems to me that it is the better plan compared to the status quo IF you prioritize minimizing rates of alcohol-related accidents.

If your priority is on ''blaming the right people/elements'' (the drunk drivers vs blaming the alcohol) or on personal autonomy, then MAYBE you could argue that your plan is better. But then as I've said... I really don't care for those concerns so long as more lives are saved.

And the personal autonomy/freedom thing really has been factored into my argument. For where there is a general ''consensus against alcohol'' it can be said that the freedom to drink has really become a largely irrelevant thing. It's a freedom that wouldn't be exercised at all by most of the population... so it is at least partially addressed.

I hope this stirs it back into a more productive discussion. You can if you want, completely ignore my last post...

[Yorkopolis]

Hey, Kefka, the US wants to have a discussion with you on what happens when you ban alcohol in a society that has had alcohol in it for hundreds of years. You're going to have a very hard time crusading against alcohol, if you even succeed at all, considering most people are wiser than to listen to someone who hates alcohol because he thinks drunk driving is caused by alcohol, and not by the drunk drivers themselves.

[God Kefka]

Because, if we ban alcohol for being a "potentially dangerous substance", or just "potentially dangerous" in general, then I suppose we should just be banning everything already, because everything we do, is potentially dangerous.

Critical elements that also have to be considered are that the proposed element has to have 1) the considerable capability to cause loss of self-control in a measurable chemical sense, 2) be heavily statistically correlated with events relating to injury/death, 3) have a potentially strong addictive quality to them, and 4) whose complete removal and ban would not cause immediate economic and societal dysfunction as understood in terms of necessity. There could be other criterias but I will need to think more.

So for example, a video game would very clearly lack ''2)'' and thus can't be banned. A car would very clearly lack ''4)''... removing cars would cause ''immediate economic and societal dysfunction as understood in terms of necessity.''

As I said before; by all means educate people about the risks of alcohol and blame the drunk drivers themselves for what they did, instead of blaming it on a drink. People go drinking? Fine. People go drinking and then decide to step into the car? Not fine, but not the fault of the drink. The drink's a drink, not some poisonous substance you'd see in a Harry Potter movie of sorts. Yes, it contains ethanol, now is that so horrible? Is that oh-so sinful?

The phrase ''blaming the drink...''

See, I don't care about blame or assigning blame correctly. I just care about establishing a ''consensus against alcohol'' so that we can ban and save lives. Now it LOOKS like we are blaming alcohol and on the ground that is what we are doing... perhaps we are doing it incorrectly... but I don't care. Why? Because this will lead to a better and safer society. The blaming plays a functional role in setting up the conditions to mitigate future accidents... the blaming is only there to facilitate a consensus... the blaming is not itself the criterion on which to decide success or failure of the policy. It is a normative concern I do not concern myself with...

Once that consensus takes force, it will set in place a strong tradition and culture that is anti-alcoholic. People can smarten up later and see the truth but by then the consensus will be in place though the force of tradition and culture. That is enough.

I just don't see educating drivers and people about alcohol's dangers completely/or near completely getting rid of drunk driver accidents. However, I do see an effective ban on alcohol (facilitated by a consensus, perhaps based initially on incorrect assignment of blame or unjustifiable moral convictions... but ultimately backed by normative, traditional, and cultural forces that uphold the importance of this public value in the interest of the collective in the long run)... doing that. Which is why I say my plan is better in terms of saving lives. No access to alcohol... no possibility of drunk driver accidents. There's no more direct a way than this to address the problem.

Again, if we ban alcohol we're only attacking the symptoms, not the disease; the drunk drivers themselves are responsible for what they did, not a drink. How the flying fuck can a drink, an inanimate substance, get people to decide "hey let's drive drunk"? People themselves decide to drive after having drunk, a drink does not.

Again... I am not interested in the theoretical assignment of causality or blame.

This is what I say to myself...

I am interested in the result of saving lives. Of lowering that fraction of near 40% of highway accidents for example being linked to heavy alcohol consumption being as close to zero as possible... through whatever means necessary.

I don't care if the alcohol ''caused'' the deaths or not. I just know that if there is no alcohol... there can be no drunk driving accidents. Therefore, this is the most direct way to fight the disease.

Why should we settle for moronic, authoritarian ideas ("uu omg lez ban alcohol 'caus its causd lots of crym") when the preemptive strategy of educating the people about the risks and actually blaming the drunk drivers themselves instead of being morons and blaming a drink? When can your mind get past that point?

Because your strategy has not been working.

Also, it is not authoritarian if we get the general consensus first to make the ban effective. It won't be viewed as such by the vast majority of people in my scenario so I don't know why you would be complaining...

Also, I don't think it's moronic to take away an unnecessary freedom (definitely close to being completely unnecessary once we reach a stage of a large scale anti-alcohol consensus) to save lives and prevent innocent deaths.

I do consider it closer to the scale of moronic to keep freedoms if that means large numbers of innocent people have to die every year for that freedom. It's a blood-soaked freedom and what's worse... people are dying for choices they are not making themselves. Innocent bystanders don't choose to be killed in highway accidents by drunk drivers... in this case you have the injustice of the choice of people to drink and drive, resulting in the death and injury of other people. Why should we prioritize choice over saving lives?

And your system is one where we must constantly live in fear and worry because the government chose to ban drinks some people tend to like, with penalties that could cost us OUR lives or the lives of innocent people who just wanted to have a drink? I can tell you, alcohol-free wine, alcohol-free rum, alcohol-free whatever more, tastes god-awful, so don't go around smearing that in my face.

By the moral consensus of that society, if you want to have a drink... you are not innocent. Because your actions threaten the explicit and implicit moral consensus of society to sacrifice its freedom to drink alcohol in the name of the protection of the public from drunk driver accidents and alcohol-induced crime. You would be seen as a sort of tax dodger... a polluter... a violator of a collective interest problem. See? It's all a matter of perspective, cultural assumptions, and normative assumptions. This is what I'm talking about... social engineering. How do we change society's assumptions and values so to save the most lives?

See here, you may be thinking right, but then again, you're also thinking wrongly. In the Middle East, where there hasn't been alcohol in more than 1400 years, nobody has a desire to drink it. However, in the West, where we have known alcohol since the dawn of time, banning it would be not only extremely retarded, but result in lots of crimes and, I could see this happening, the rise of Al Capone all the way back to life.

Which is why a social consensus, perhaps approaching the level of that in the Middle East but perhaps not quite there, has to be achieved before we go down Prohibition again.

We have to make sure the law follows the public will and has legitimacy first. And this is why we must do our best to generate this anti-alcohol consensus first. After a while we can set into place forces of tradition and culture that will make a future ban palatable.

Tell me, please, with a real source, how many alcohol-related incidents per year you hear of? I hear of few. Sure some horrible, tragic ones happen, they sure do, not going to deny that, but just because of some incidents, does that mean we should be attacking alcohol.

Apparantly tens of thousands every year in the US alone...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/he ... k5_5CR6Y_k

''Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday... excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States..Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use...''

[Vitaphone Racing]

My suggestion
We work to create a social consensus against alcohol and then we enforce an effective ban after that consensus is reached in large part. This would then eliminate/almost completely eliminate all drunk-driver/alcohol-induced accidents/crimes. This approach would save innocent lives every year.

And I don't like your suggestion. It's drilled into young minds at an early age that alcohol is a dangerous substance, that excessively drinking alcohol is viewed as loutish behaviour, that drink driving is a dangerous action. Ask anybody on the street, anybody at all, what they think of drink drivers and I guarantee you it won't be much better than the public view of child molesters. There is very much a social consensus against binge drinking (even people who want to do it know it's bad) and drink driving, I don't know how much more you want out of this. We do not need a ban and nor would one ever be effective.

Do you dispute that in a situation where society reaches a moral consensus on against alcohol and where an effective ban on alcohol could be enforced... that LESS people would be killed/injured in random accidents as compared to the status quo?

You can't get much more hypothetical than this. Alcohol has been an integral part of many human cultures for a very long time, please explain how you'd go about erasing this and creating a society where people no longer want to drink alcohol, but hate it enough that they'd support a public ban. Hell, we can't even do that with smoking tobacco or marijuana, neither of which hold the favourable position in society as alcohol.

You could make a case for that and for all we know you could be right. It is a hypothetical, and an idealized hypothetical I think we should strive for. On paper though, it seems to me that it is the better plan compared to the status quo IF you prioritize minimizing rates of alcohol-related accidents.

If your priority is on ''blaming the right people/elements'' (the drunk drivers vs blaming the alcohol) or on personal autonomy, then MAYBE you could argue that your plan is better. But then as I've said... I really don't care for those concerns so long as more lives are saved.

And the personal autonomy/freedom thing really has been factored into my argument. For where there is a general ''consensus against alcohol'' it can be said that the freedom to drink has really become a largely irrelevant thing. It's a freedom that wouldn't be exercised at all by most of the population... so it is at least partially addressed.

I'm glad you accept that it isn't realistic, so that pretty much negates any of the "on paper" credibility which it has.

Let's get one thing straight, alcohol related road accidents are not growing in number in western society. They are decreasing. There has been a substantial shift in attitude towards alcohol in that it's dangerous over the decades and now we are seeing the benefits. We are saving lives without taking rash actions.

[Wanna Nyan]

Banned during weekdays, Legal during weekend and People's Unity Parade only, Legal in Big Jail because they are stupid to follow normal people's law

[Wind in the Willows]

No.

[God Kefka]

Hey, Kefka, the US wants to have a discussion with you on what happens when you ban alcohol in a society that has had alcohol in it for hundreds of years. You're going to have a very hard time crusading against alcohol, if you even succeed at all, considering most people are wiser than to listen to someone who hates alcohol because he thinks drunk driving is caused by alcohol, and not by the drunk drivers themselves.

Yeah but Prohibition was an example where there wasn't a consensus behind the ban and the cultural assumptions of the citizens of the state were not sufficiently changed before the ban.

Furthermore, during Prohibition the police didn't have the technology, organization, tactical methods, modern innovations that they have today and were much more susceptible to corruption. Furthermore, they themselves didn't necessarily believe in the values of the anti-alcoholic ethos much less the people.

It may take well take hundreds of years to do things my way and frankly I myself don't have the energy, personal power, resources, influence or time and probably not the longevity to carry out my plans.

Which is too bad...

I wish I could live for thousands of years as an immortal vampire, have magical powers, and dramatically influence world governments behind the scenes. THEN maybe I could get a lot of powerful actors behind my plans... but oh well right?

I'm just a law student, so... I can't do much right now.

[Forster Keys]

Need I post a post a link to the Valentine's Day massacre that went down during prohibition? People would resort to circumventing the law and it would not end up well.

which is why we need to change the social consensus first...

If everyone is against alcohol... then no one drink alcohol... meaning you won't have problem... Active prohibition is only necessarily when there is no consensus.

[God Kefka]

which is why we need to change the social consensus first...

If everyone is against alcohol... then no one drink alcohol... meaning you won't have problem... Active prohibition is only necessarily when there is no consensus.

Well the consensus here is not in the sense of a total consensus but a largely complete or near complete consensus.

So there is always potentially a minority that could be attempting to violate this norm or challenge the laws (say with regards to immigrants, a particularly isolated minority, an ethnic minority whatever). In which case enforcement can be targeted against them and with the support of a highly sympathetic public.

The point is that there needs to be a safeguard against having to enforce a law against a large majority of people who are prone to be defiant. This is where a large-scale social consensus is important...

So it would always be the majority against the minority and the general cultural assumptions, traditions, and normative values would be in favor of the establishment rather than against it.

[Forster Keys]

If everyone is against alcohol... then no one drink alcohol... meaning you won't have problem... Active prohibition is only necessarily when there is no consensus.

Well the consensus here is not in the sense of a total consensus but a largely complete or near complete consensus.

So there is always potentially a minority that could be attempting to violate this norm or challenge the laws (say with regards to immigrants, a particularly isolated minority, an ethnic minority whatever). In which case enforcement can be targeted against them and with the support of a highly sympathetic public.

The point is that there needs to be a safeguard against having to enforce a law against a large majority of people who are prone to be defiant. This is where a large-scale social consensus is important...

So it would always be the majority against the minority and the general cultural assumptions, traditions, and normative values would be in favor of the establishment rather than against it.

So your optimal situation only revolves preventing minorities from controlling their own bodies and actions?

[God Kefka]

Well the consensus here is not in the sense of a total consensus but a largely complete or near complete consensus.

So there is always potentially a minority that could be attempting to violate this norm or challenge the laws (say with regards to immigrants, a particularly isolated minority, an ethnic minority whatever). In which case enforcement can be targeted against them and with the support of a highly sympathetic public.

The point is that there needs to be a safeguard against having to enforce a law against a large majority of people who are prone to be defiant. This is where a large-scale social consensus is important...

So it would always be the majority against the minority and the general cultural assumptions, traditions, and normative values would be in favor of the establishment rather than against it.

So your optimal situation only revolves preventing minorities from controlling their own bodies and actions?

Exactly... =)

Pick a fight against a majority and you will almost always lose (ala Prohibition in the 30s). But convince, trick, manipulate, sell a deal to the majority and they buy it and get on your side... now you've just got to fight the occasional minorities. MUCH easier battles to win...

Well if it saves lives by reducing drunk driver accidents and alcohol-induced crime... then I think the price is well worth it.

Politics is always a trade-off between different evils. I think the preservation of human life, especially innocent human life from the threat of alcohol-induced crime and drunk driver incidents to a near complete level, in exchange for some sacrifices to society... is warranted and good stuff.