Should Alchohol be Illegal?

[Shamhnan Insir]

No way at all that it would be enforceable. Hell, I'd find me a cave and start a distillery.

[Ponyfornia]

Yeah, let's legalize PCP

Why not?

[Luveria]

Yeah, let's legalize PCP

Why not?

Are you going to legalize Bath Salts too?

[Ponyfornia]

Why not?

Are you going to legalize Bath Salts too?

I'm still not sure about bath salts.

[Luveria]

Are you going to legalize Bath Salts too?

I'm still not sure about bath salts.

To be fair, Bath Salts only became a problem because all other more enjoyable and less harmful stimulants were all banned. I doubt there would be much issues with Bath Salts if no other drugs were banned.

[Ponyfornia]

I'm still not sure about bath salts.

To be fair, Bath Salts only became a problem because all other more enjoyable and less harmful stimulants were all banned. I doubt there would be much issues with Bath Salts if no other drugs were banned.

Yep. Drugs like bath salts, crack (and heroin to some extent) are fruits of prohibition.

[God Kefka]

But what if someone without a prior history gets drunk and enters a car to drive (and hence would not have the device installed to preempt)?

There's always a first time for even the people who eventually become habitual drunk drivers?

If it's installed in every vehicle it's a needlessly expensive measure to society using such preemptive prevention methods against everyone, whereas if someone is known to have a record of such things, then the cost is only at them.

And secondly, it doesn't stop people from driving while on commonly available highs such as cough syrup or weed, or benzodiazepines they have been prescribed for insomnia. Driving under the effects of an impairing drug is already illegal, and there is already a system to revoke drivers licenses if there is a history of violations.

I would still support making it compulsory to have them installed in all motor vehicles because it would preempt any and all drunk people from driving (even those without a record). It would be expensive but it has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/he ... XNSR6Y_k... ''Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use...''

The problem with selectively installing it against only those who have an established record of drunk driving is that well... by the time they have that record (which they worked for)... they could very well have harmed/killed many other people. Also, every person who becomes a drunk driver has to start somewhere... and he started without a record.

Thus it seems that we are using a useful technology only as a RESPONSE to people first proving themselves ''worthy'' by drunk driving several times. Why wait for certain harms, symptoms to develop before acting?

When it seems to me it would far more productive to just apply the technology across the board... don't wait for people to screw up (and hurt others in the process)... just preempt all drunk driver accidents accidents with it.

It would be more expensive for everyone but I think society as a whole benefits if there are no more drunk driver accidents... and considering the fact that we are surely right now already paying taxes for a lot of useless things, I'm sure we could re-arrange the budget to have the government work something out with the manufacturers.

You are correct in saying that it wouldn't preempt other types of accidents under driving (influenced by syrup, weed etc) but it does prevent one major type of road accidents. One that accounts for close to 40% of all highway accidents every year...

[Ifreann]

Mavorpen! Neo Art! Farnhamia! Gods of NSG, save me! Alcohol induced incidents? Kefka still, after all this time, insists that drunk driving and such are alcohol induced incidents rather than alcohol related incidents? How can I possibly communicate with one who will not listen, who will not learn, and who cares not about facts?

It's simple. I cannot. And yea, another member was added to the Ignore Brigade roster. I wash my hands of thee, Kefka.

... insists that drunk driving and such are alcohol induced incidents rather than alcohol related incidents

See this doesn't even speak to me...

Cause I don't care either way. I am not interested in arguing about strict notions of causality (''did the alcohol ''cause'' it or strictly speaking, can you not say it ''caused'' it since it was only one of many factors and can only be said to be ''related''?'')

Thus, you are not interested in preventing drunk driving. If you were you would want to focus on the actual causes, so as to be maximally effective in preventing them.

[Luveria]

To be fair, Bath Salts only became a problem because all other more enjoyable and less harmful stimulants were all banned. I doubt there would be much issues with Bath Salts if no other drugs were banned.

Yep. Drugs like bath salts, crack (and heroin to some extent) are fruits of prohibition.

Heroin is often used because it gives more bang for the buck than morphine, which is artificially expensive from the vast majority of street morphine being diverted from people's prescriptions. Meth is used because it's cheaper to manufacture than speed is, and that's because of prohibition. The worst and most serious societal drug problems are a direct result of eradicating lesser problems which always have been replaced with something worse.

If all drugs were legal, there would be no real reason for people to use the most harmful ones. And again, prohibition doesn't actually stop anyone from using drugs.

If it's installed in every vehicle it's a needlessly expensive measure to society using such preemptive prevention methods against everyone, whereas if someone is known to have a record of such things, then the cost is only at them.

And secondly, it doesn't stop people from driving while on commonly available highs such as cough syrup or weed, or benzodiazepines they have been prescribed for insomnia. Driving under the effects of an impairing drug is already illegal, and there is already a system to revoke drivers licenses if there is a history of violations.

I would still support making it compulsory to have them installed in all motor vehicles because it would preempt any and all drunk people from driving (even those without a record). It would be expensive but it has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/he ... XNSR6Y_k... ''Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use...''

The problem with selectively installing it against only those who have an established record of drunk driving is that well... by the time they have that record (which they worked for)... they could very well have harmed/killed many other people. Also, every person who becomes a drunk driver has to start somewhere... and he started without a record.

Thus it seems that we are using a useful technology only as a RESPONSE to people first proving themselves ''worthy'' by drunk driving several times. Why wait for certain harms, symptoms to develop before acting?

When it seems to me it would far more productive to just apply the technology across the board... don't wait for people to screw up (and hurt others in the process)... just preempt all drunk driver accidents accidents with it.

It would be more expensive for everyone but I think society as a whole benefits if there are no more drunk driver accidents... and considering the fact that we are surely right now already paying taxes for a lot of useless things, I'm sure we could re-arrange the budget to have the government work something out with the manufacturers.

You are correct in saying that it wouldn't preempt other types of accidents under driving (influenced by syrup, weed etc) but it does prevent one major type of road accidents. One that accounts for close to 40% of all highway accidents every year...

Even if the expensive cost is ignored, then people are being treated as potential criminals already. It's akin to law-abiding citizens having their houses searched every month for illegal weapons, just to know they don't have any, even if they never had a record of any reason to suspect they may possibly possess illegal weapons.

Not all crimes can be prevented, and from an efficiency view, the maximum amount of gain is from those known to be susceptible to drunk driving being the ones to have preventative measures against them. Freedoms don't have much meaning if a society comes across as a semi-totalitarian one in which for any person to start their car they must prove they have had no alcohol. That creates a worse society for people to live in than one with drunk drivers.

[God Kefka]

See this doesn't even speak to me...

Cause I don't care either way. I am not interested in arguing about strict notions of causality (''did the alcohol ''cause'' it or strictly speaking, can you not say it ''caused'' it since it was only one of many factors and can only be said to be ''related''?'')

Thus, you are not interested in preventing drunk driving. If you were you would want to focus on the actual causes, so as to be maximally effective in preventing them.

If there is no alcohol... how can there be DRUNK driving?

See I'm NOT interested in whether or not the alcohol can in philosophical terms be said to ''cause'' drunk driving accidents... whether or not and to what extent we can assign moral blame to the alcohol.

The only thing I'm interested in is preventing the deaths that have to do with alcohol. In that sense since we are talking about drunk driving accidents and without alcoholic drinks you CAN'T have drunk driving accidents... I care about removing the alcohol.

[Luveria]

Thus, you are not interested in preventing drunk driving. If you were you would want to focus on the actual causes, so as to be maximally effective in preventing them.

If there is no alcohol... how can there be DRUNK driving?

See I'm interested in whether or not the alcohol can in philosophical terms be said to ''cause'' drunk driving accidents... whether or not and to what extent we can assign moral blame to the alcohol.

The only thing I'm interested in is preventing the deaths that have to do with alcohol. In that sense since we are talking about drunk driving accidents and without alcoholic drinks you CAN'T have drunk driving accidents... I care about removing the alcohol.

Because prohibition increased the amount of alcohol use. That makes the philosophical points moot.

[Ifreann]

Thus, you are not interested in preventing drunk driving. If you were you would want to focus on the actual causes, so as to be maximally effective in preventing them.

If there is no alcohol... how can there be DRUNK driving?

If there is no liquid water on Earth, how can there be drunk driving?

See I'm NOT interested in whether or not the alcohol can in philosophical terms be said to ''cause'' drunk driving accidents... whether or not and to what extent we can assign moral blame to the alcohol.

I am not speaking in philosophical terms. I am speaking of practicality. You want to prevent drunk driving. You should first identify why drunk driving happens, and then attack the weakest link in the chain of causality, as you put it. Thus you prevent drunk driving with the minimum expenditure of time and effort and save the maximum number of lives.

The only thing I'm interested in is preventing the deaths that have to do with alcohol. In that sense since we are talking about drunk driving accidents and without alcoholic drinks you CAN'T have drunk driving accidents... I care about removing the alcohol.

In fact I believe that you care only about removing alcohol in general and you've latched onto drunk driving as an ex post facto justification.

[God Kefka]

I would still support making it compulsory to have them installed in all motor vehicles because it would preempt any and all drunk people from driving (even those without a record). It would be expensive but it has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/he ... XNSR6Y_k... ''Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use...''

The problem with selectively installing it against only those who have an established record of drunk driving is that well... by the time they have that record (which they worked for)... they could very well have harmed/killed many other people. Also, every person who becomes a drunk driver has to start somewhere... and he started without a record.

Thus it seems that we are using a useful technology only as a RESPONSE to people first proving themselves ''worthy'' by drunk driving several times. Why wait for certain harms, symptoms to develop before acting?

When it seems to me it would far more productive to just apply the technology across the board... don't wait for people to screw up (and hurt others in the process)... just preempt all drunk driver accidents accidents with it.

It would be more expensive for everyone but I think society as a whole benefits if there are no more drunk driver accidents... and considering the fact that we are surely right now already paying taxes for a lot of useless things, I'm sure we could re-arrange the budget to have the government work something out with the manufacturers.

You are correct in saying that it wouldn't preempt other types of accidents under driving (influenced by syrup, weed etc) but it does prevent one major type of road accidents. One that accounts for close to 40% of all highway accidents every year...

Even if the expensive cost is ignored, then people are being treated as potential criminals already. It's akin to law-abiding citizens having their houses searched every month for illegal weapons, just to know they don't have any, even if they never had a record of any reason to suspect they may possibly possess illegal weapons.

Not all crimes can be prevented, and from an efficiency view, the maximum amount of gain is from those known to be susceptible to drunk driving being the ones to have preventative measures against them. Freedoms don't have much meaning if a society comes across as a semi-totalitarian one in which for any person to start their car they must prove they have had no alcohol. That creates a worse society for people to live in than one with drunk drivers.

That's an interesting take on it...

But do you agree it would probably save lives/pre-empt drunk driving accidents on one of the greatest scales?

If this device were on every single car, then there is no conceivable way (if the machine is working) for a person who is drunk to EVER drive a car.

I don't know if it crosses the line into being semi-totalitarian especially if we simply frame it as a safety feature (we already have laws that say the manufacturer must put in functioning air balloons, seat belts, certain safety procedures etc).

Furthermore, putting an breath analyzer ignition lock device into all cars is not a real invasion of privacy. The machine doesn't watch you... it doesn't have a camera installed it... it can only perform one function... lock your car if you were going to drive while being drunk (something we all universally condemn).

Why can't we just view it as an additional feature to make sure the ''right person'' drives the car?

Right now we have one mechanism in place to make sure the ''right person'' drives it... it is the key slot to start the car. The ''right person'' is the person who has the keys... Because we assume that if the driver has the keys then he is driving without violating a certain criminal law (theft etc).

Expand that definition of the ''right person'' to one who is not intoxicated under the influence of alcohol.

The breath analyzer device would serve an additional function to the key slot. It makes sure that the person who drives it is the ''right person'' to drive... that he is sober and not drunk. So the ''right person'' to drive any car would be 1) someone who has the keys (is the owner or someone the owner has presumably given permission to drive) and 2) someone NOT intoxicated and who we have to assume is not going to endanger society in the case he is sober.

I don't think see it as a breach of privacy or over-the-top monitoring of the individual because the monitoring is so limited. Also, it is going to save lives.

How many lives would be saved if a car were to automatically lock itself every single time someone who has too much alcohol in his breath were to try and drive it?

Hell this is one of the best preventative measures ever and it should definitely be installed on every car as a bylaw similar to seatbelts and other safety features...

We don't worry about the government or car manufacturers planting cameras or sound rec devices into other parts of the car that are mandatory by law (windshield, safety balloons, seatbelts etc)... so why should we worry about that with regard to this hypothetical mandatory device?

How will the government be monitoring us in a way that is semi-totalitarian? Heck... the government isn't even monitoring you... the machine is. It just locks the car down if you try to drive it while under alcohol...

Or am I mistaking how the machine works? It doesn't even have to reveal your position to the government... it just has to reliably shut the car down every single time someone fails the breath test.

If every single car in the country had this machine installed... we could at least get rid of one of the factors contributing to death and accident on the roads... alcohol (even if this wouldn't address the other potential substances). No?

[Jamjai]

I would personally like to see it banned or at least regulated

I don't like the culture of people drinking until they get drunk or smashing a car with iron sledgehammer while laughing like a manic on steroids/drugs.

[Orham]

I am not speaking in philosophical terms. I am speaking of practicality. You want to prevent drunk driving. You should first identify why drunk driving happens, and then attack the weakest link in the chain of causality, as you put it. Thus you prevent drunk driving with the minimum expenditure of time and effort and save the maximum number of lives.

I believe the "philosophical terms" refers to my breakdown of Kefka's argument into symbolic logic. It wasn't a particularly complicated analysis, but I suppose since Kefka isn't familiar with symbolic logic the whole thing came off as a bit intimidating and confusing (which I can totally understand).

I don't like the culture of people drinking until they get drunk or smashing a car with iron sledgehammer while laughing like a manic on steroids/drugs.

...what?

[Mizrah]

For Muslims, possibly. Everyone else, no.

[Ponyfornia]

For Muslims, possibly. Everyone else, no.

So the state should tell people how to act according to their religion by laws?

Haha, no.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Thus, you are not interested in preventing drunk driving. If you were you would want to focus on the actual causes, so as to be maximally effective in preventing them.

If there is no alcohol... how can there be DRUNK driving?

See I'm NOT interested in whether or not the alcohol can in philosophical terms be said to ''cause'' drunk driving accidents... whether or not and to what extent we can assign moral blame to the alcohol.

The only thing I'm interested in is preventing the deaths that have to do with alcohol. In that sense since we are talking about drunk driving accidents and without alcoholic drinks you CAN'T have drunk driving accidents... I care about removing the alcohol.

What you're interested in is pursuing a noble pipe dream which by your own admission is extremely unlikely to function and are dismissive of the progress we've made in reducing drink driving fatalities in the last 20 years, a rate which has more or less halved.

[Olthar]

In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, and prohibition only leads to bad things.

[Occupied Deutschland]

In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, and prohibition only leads to bad things.

If an ideal world doesn't have alcohol, it ain't an ideal world.

[Olthar]

In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, and prohibition only leads to bad things.

If an ideal world doesn't have alcohol, it ain't an ideal world.

Everyone's ideals are different. *nods*

[Occupied Deutschland]

If an ideal world doesn't have alcohol, it ain't an ideal world.

Everyone's ideals are different. *nods*

But my ideals are so much more idyllic than everyone else's! *nod*

[Olthar]

Everyone's ideals are different. *nods*

But my ideals are so much more idyllic than everyone else's! *nod*

My ideals have more lesbians, so there.

[Occupied Deutschland]

But my ideals are so much more idyllic than everyone else's! *nod*

My ideals have more lesbians, so there.

...
Damn, I guess that makes yours more idyllic after all.

You win again, lesbians.

Anyhow, no alcohol shouldn't be illegal.

[Olthar]

My ideals have more lesbians, so there.

...
Damn, I guess that makes yours more idyllic after all.

You win again, lesbians.

Anyhow, no alcohol shouldn't be illegal.

No, iy really shouldn't. I'd much prefer if we didn't create Al Capone 2.0, especially since I'm Italian and would, therefore be forced to get mixed up in all of that, and I'm too pretty to go to jail.