Results 1 to 30 of 248

Thread: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Quite the opposite..
    I guess it depends on the family. My family always has a fun time when my grandma, aunt and other elder relatives break out the wine and start reminiscing about embarrassing/awesome stories during Thanksgiving/Easter/Christmas/any other holiday they come over.

    No, it is the human nature that allows that.
    Not really. Alcohol is a social lubricant. If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it. You can make more friends in uni by going to parties frequently than any other way. Those that are already friendly become even more friendly and those that are more introverted like me, become more social after a few. You seem to be making the claim that alcohol is not needed to become social and network and yet it is used so much exactly for that purpose.

    They are temporary, but they can make a big lasting difference. They could remove centuries old rivalry in a nation/area and replace it with a co-operative and more united future.
    If one side completely wipes out the other, then yes. France/England didn't get along because they finally reached a certain threshold of wars. Free market and financial dependence created peace. What instance has there been where both sides suddenly became best friends after killing each other?


  2. #2
    Hǫrðar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    I guess it depends on the family. My family always has a fun time when my grandma, aunt and other elder relatives break out the wine and start reminiscing about embarrassing/awesome stories during Thanksgiving/Easter/Christmas/any other holiday they come over.
    Alcohol causes divorces, it causes troubles because parents can turn into alcholics (common story) and because little kids may have to put up with drunk parents from time to time (a frightening experience for them). As for the 'bringing together' bit, I've already dealt with it - but I'll reiterate it below.


    Not really. Alcohol is a social lubricant. If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it. You can make more friends in uni by going to parties frequently than any other way. Those that are already friendly become even more friendly and those that are more introverted like me, become more social after a few. You seem to be making the claim that alcohol is not needed to become social and network and yet it is used so much exactly for that purpose.
    Yes really! Some animals are social and can form bonds that last their entire lives (e.g. humans), other animals not so social creatures that primarily meet during the mating season (e.g. tigers). Alchol does not change this the slightest - once the intoxication wears off, humans are pysically back to where they were before.

    "If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it" is a terrible logical fallacy. People do not need the alcohol for socialisation, it only happens to be used for this purpose. It makes a difference, but not necessarily a positive one. In the larger picture, the sum will be negative: people will always bond, meet new people and enjoy themselves, but it takes alcohol for alchol induced fights, adultery, DWI and so on.


    If one side completely wipes out the other, then yes. France/England didn't get along because they finally reached a certain threshold of wars. Free market and financial dependence created peace. What instance has there been where both sides suddenly became best friends after killing each other?
    It does not have bring all of mankind together, but that was not the topic. Despite that, look what WWII did the to relationship Germany had with the rest of Europe - from being bad guys during Hitler's reign (considering the time before the outbreak of the war) to a respected member of the continent. So yes, wars can actually "unite" all of mankind (or less ambitious: the two sides in a conflict), given the right circumanstances.
    Last edited by Viking; 06-08-2011 at 12:25.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  3. #3

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Alcohol causes divorces, it causes troubles because parents can turn into alcholics (common story) and because little kids may have to put up with drunk parents from time to time (a frightening experience for them). As for the 'bringing together' bit, I've already dealt with it - but I'll reiterate it below.
    This is why I took back my original statement saying I guess it depends on the family. Don't try to portray me as defending alcoholism.

    Yes really! Some animals are social and can form bonds that last their entire lives (e.g. humans), other animals not so social creatures that primarily meet during the mating season (e.g. tigers). Alchol does not change this the slightest - once the intoxication wears off, humans are pysically back to where they were before.
    But the interaction is not purely a physical one. The alcohol has created a bond between people that otherwise would not have formed. I'm not denying that people love to talk to other people, I am just saying that alcohol has helped that process more than anything else.

    "If people didn't need it, they wouldn't do it" is a terrible logical fallacy. People do not need the alcohol for socialisation, it only happens to be used for this purpose. It makes a difference, but not necessarily a positive one. In the larger picture, the sum will be negative: people will always bond, meet new people and enjoy themselves, but it takes alcohol for alchol induced fights, adultery, DWI and so on.
    I hate most people. I need some alcohol in me before I start talking with idiots from the local kegger. Yes, humans are social, but alcohol amplifies it to a new level. Yes, you can make friends without alcohol, but you can make more, in an easier fashion when you do indulge in it with others. Some people do need to relax a bit before they cozy up with anyone. I am one of them.

    It does not have bring all of mankind together, but that was not the topic. Despite that, look what WWII did the to relationship Germany had with the rest of Europe - from being bad guys during Hitler's reign (considering the time before the outbreak of the war) to a respected member of the continent. So yes, wars can actually "unite" all of mankind (or less ambitious: the two sides in a conflict), given the right circumanstances.
    Respected? Forgive me, but from what I have read in this very forum, the idea of a unified Europe or any sort of co-dependence between European nations is very much not liked by more than a few Europeans. Does Greece respect Germany when they want bailouts without cutting back fiscally? Does the UK respect Germany when many UK citizens don't want to dive in and become part of the Euro/EU fold?

    Nation's now respect Germany? Didn't wikileaks reveal that the US killed a German citizen by accident in a counter-terrorist operation and then told the German government to keep it under wraps?

    No, wars don't lead to any meaningful "peace". When wars are done, everyone holds hands to remember those that have died, then go about being nations again. WW2 simply shifted the power structure away from Germany towards other nations, and thus the super powers treated Germany less as a threat and more as a pawn. This isn't respect.

    EDIT: The more I read your responses, the more I think they mean nothing. You list the consequences of alcohol abuse and then are asserting that that applies to a majority of households. This isn't true. Alcohol use is extremely high, almost everyone drinks alcohol at least on holiday's, and if the situation was even 15% what you put it as, then the reality would be much different than it is today.

    Basically I have said this:
    "Alcohol brings more people together than anything else."

    You reply with this:
    "But it also brings people apart."

    That does not negate my statement.
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 06-08-2011 at 12:50.


  4. #4
    Hǫrðar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    This is why I took back my original statement saying I guess it depends on the family. Don't try to portray me as defending alcoholism.
    You were saying that in general/sum, alcohol was bringing families together. Saying that it depends on the family is not to retract that, it fits nicely with the idea.

    But the interaction is not purely a physical one. The alcohol has created a bond between people that otherwise would not have formed. I'm not denying that people love to talk to other people, I am just saying that alcohol has helped that process more than anything else.
    Let's see...one obvious way that a particular bond would not be formed, would be because the persons met in a pub, and without alcohol, the pub would not be there. Granted. This bond could then be replaced by another one instead, that is no problem.

    The other way a bond would not form, is to say that without alcohol one of the persons would not be in mood to make contact - in one way or the other. That is a really suspiciously sounding statement. First of all, it sounds a bit like the socialisation could only occur when they are intoxicated - they won't go along otherwise. Secondly, it sounds a bit like alcohol could lead to dependency: let's say one of the persons is nervous when it comes to making contact with new people. He indulges some alcohol to overcome his nervousness. It works for him, so he is tempted to use alcohol again for this purpose. What he instead could have done, is to take the initiative without alcohol one time, and succeed. It could cure hime from his nervousness, and he would not "need" alcohol to initiate contact with other people.

    In sum, it is hard to spot any necessity.

    I hate most people. I need some alcohol in me before I start talking with idiots from the local kegger. Yes, humans are social, but alcohol amplifies it to a new level. Yes, you can make friends without alcohol, but you can make more, in an easier fashion when you do indulge in it with others. Some people do need to relax a bit before they cozy up with anyone. I am one of them.
    As per above, by using in alcohol this way, you could simply be pushing the problems ahead of you. Humans adapt to their surroundings.


    Respected? Forgive me, but from what I have read in this very forum, the idea of a unified Europe or any sort of co-dependence between European nations is very much not liked by more than a few Europeans. Does Greece respect Germany when they want bailouts without cutting back fiscally? Does the UK respect Germany when many UK citizens don't want to dive in and become part of the Euro/EU fold?

    Nation's now respect Germany? Didn't wikileaks reveal that the US killed a German citizen by accident in a counter-terrorist operation and then told the German government to keep it under wraps?
    Yes, more respected than what Nazi-Germany was - that was my point.

    No, wars don't lead to any meaningful "peace". When wars are done, everyone holds hands to remember those that have died, then go about being nations again. WW2 simply shifted the power structure away from Germany towards other nations, and thus the super powers treated Germany less as a threat and more as a pawn. This isn't respect.
    It is respect. They can treat each other more like equals now. The relationships between the relevant countries are better now, that is the point.



    EDIT: The more I read your responses, the more I think they mean nothing. You list the consequences of alcohol abuse and then are asserting that that applies to a majority of households. This isn't true. Alcohol use is extremely high, almost everyone drinks alcohol at least on holiday's, and if the situation was even 15% what you put it as, then the reality would be much different than it is today.

    Basically I have said this:
    "Alcohol brings more people together than anything else."

    You reply with this:
    "But it also brings people apart."

    That does not negate my statement.
    Your assertion is that alcohol works as a positive force, and that it is good because it can act as tool of forming/strengthening social ties. Underlying this, however, is also both a perceived necessity as well as a positive total sum (for society) - and these two elements are what I have been contesting. You may not have said these things explicitly, but it is hard not to not interpret your posts this way.

    I am not contesting that alcohol could have a positive effect in sum on many people. Not because I accept it as a fact, but because it is hard to analyse the subject with a casual approach.
    Last edited by Viking; 06-08-2011 at 22:11.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  5. #5

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You were saying that in general/sum, alcohol was bringing families together. Saying that it depends on the family is not to retract that, it fits nicely with the idea.
    Alright then. Noted.

    Let's see...one obvious way that a particular bond would not be formed, would be because the persons met in a pub, and without alcohol, the pub would not be there. Granted. This bond could then be replaced by another one instead, that is no problem.
    But what guarantee is there that the bond would be replaced? What if the only thing that two people have in common is that they love their gin and tonic and they find each other both drinking it on a Tuesday afternoon at their local pub and start talking? If there is no gin and tonic, are they both going to the bowling alley?

    The other way a bond would not form, is to say that without alcohol one of the persons would not be in mood to make contact - in one way or the other. That is a really suspiciously sounding statement. First of all, it sounds a bit like the socialisation could only occur when they are intoxicated - they won't go along otherwise. Secondly, it sounds a bit like alcohol could lead to dependency: let's say one of the persons is nervous when it comes to making contact with new people. He indulges some alcohol to overcome his nervousness. It works for him, so he is tempted to use alcohol again for this purpose. What he instead could have done, is to take the initiative without alcohol one time, and succeed. It could cure hime from his nervousness, and he would not "need" alcohol to initiate contact with other people.
    Yes, there are quite a few people who are dependent on alcohol to carry them into socialization land. They are sad cases but they exist nonetheless.

    In sum, it is hard to spot any necessity.
    From your perspective yes. But in the mind of someone who has been a hermit all his life, never going outside to parties or hanging out with large groups of people, the only way they might mentally break themselves out of their shell is by reasoning that the alcohol might make them a different, perhaps cooler person. Otherwise they might just psych themselves out mentally to do anything sober.

    As per above, by using in alcohol this way, you could simply be pushing the problems ahead of you. Humans adapt to their surroundings.
    This has a good chance of being true. But it probably depends on the individual and I guess in retrospect neither mine nor your conjecture should be applied sweepingly across all people. Some people might need it, some might not. I know a few in both categories.

    Yes, more respected than what Nazi-Germany was - that was my point.
    Alright, I will concede that Germany is more respected than when it was run by Nazi's.

    It is respect. They can treat each other more like equals now. The relationships between the relevant countries are better now, that is the point.
    I disagree there. Just because they can't stop their feet on each other due to the US being the super power nowadays, does not mean it is real respect. It is artificial respect that is dependent on some external factor, the wealth/military strength of the nations. Respect for someone else is not dependent on whether or not they have something you want or if they can beat you up, it stems from an understanding of someone else's character and judging it to be correct with your own views. I don't respect the bully that could beat me up in 4th grade even though I was completely kind to him so he wouldn't steal my Snack-Pack. I don't see how wars create an understanding of some other nation through bombing it.


    Your assertion is that alcohol works as a positive force, and that it is good because it can act as tool of forming/strengthening social ties. Underlying this, however, is also both a perceived necessity as well as a positive total sum (for society) - and these two elements are what I have been contesting. You may not have said these things explicitly, but it is hard not to not interpret your posts this way.

    I am not contesting that alcohol could have a positive effect in sum on many people. Not because I accept it as a fact, but because it is hard to analyse the subject with a casual approach.
    I guess I should clarify that it is not completely necessary for alcohol to enter the social equation here. But I do think that may, may people find it necessary themselves. I do think that it still has a net positive effect for various reasons that I can't put out as facts (for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).

    And yes, I agree with your last statement, this is very hard to just glance over from a single perspective and try to make sense of it all. The sociologist's will crack this one open for us.


  6. #6
    ridiculously suspicious Member TheLastDays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Right behind you.
    Posts
    2,116

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    (for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).
    Now at first I didn't want to join this discussion as it's slightly OT and I'm not so sure on where to place my "vote" here anyway but this statement does deserve some thought.

    My question is:
    How many socializing college parties (that could happen without alcohol, not in the same extent though, I agree on that) is one beat up wife worth?

    Now, I don't really believe there is more socializing college parties than angry, violent husbands because of alcohol but just for the sake of the argument let's assume the "socializing party:domestic abuse"-ratio is 3:1

    Okay, now let's assume without the alcohol 2 out of 3 parties wouldn't happen, or there is a general loss of two thirds of "effectiveness" for the socializing parties.

    So you'd lose "2 parties" for every wife that doesn't land in hospital - I'd take that deal...
    I hear the voice of the watchmen!

    New Mafia Game: Hunt for The Fox

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,542

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    This debate never fails to produce some of the worst types of justifications for the status quo.

    The questions are:

    1 - Does criminalisation reduce drug use in society?
    2 - Is the criminalisation/legalisation of drugs in our society based on a rational understanding of the evidence/damage of particular drugs?
    3 - Is criminalising drug users effective in reducing their drug use?
    4 - Does criminalisation of drugs reduce aquisitive crime?
    5 - Should it be up to the state to decide in which way people get high?

    I don't see how anyone can argue a yes to any of these.

    As for PVC's claiming that booze is noble and all about taste, and all other drugs are just about getting high - that's just socialisation. But seeing as he is perhaps the most conservative person on the board, it's useful to have him setting up these straw men.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,542

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Ok - bonus round.

    Name two drugs where the withdrawl can actually kill you.
    "The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney

  9. #9

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastDays View Post
    Now at first I didn't want to join this discussion as it's slightly OT and I'm not so sure on where to place my "vote" here anyway but this statement does deserve some thought.

    My question is:
    How many socializing college parties (that could happen without alcohol, not in the same extent though, I agree on that) is one beat up wife worth?

    Now, I don't really believe there is more socializing college parties than angry, violent husbands because of alcohol but just for the sake of the argument let's assume the "socializing party:domestic abuse"-ratio is 3:1

    Okay, now let's assume without the alcohol 2 out of 3 parties wouldn't happen, or there is a general loss of two thirds of "effectiveness" for the socializing parties.

    So you'd lose "2 parties" for every wife that doesn't land in hospital - I'd take that deal...
    I agree with you, but I don't know how to quantize pleasure and pain in a form able to be categorized and compared as a raw number of some sort, so the reasoning is up in the air for me.

    How many beaten wives do we save by banning alcohol again? Idk. How many Al Capones running amok is one beat up wife worth? A thousand? Ten thousand? Maybe there are 100,000 women being beaten right now due to alcoholic husbands. These are all difficult questions that don't seem to have a definitive answer.


  10. #10
    Hǫrðar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    But what guarantee is there that the bond would be replaced? What if the only thing that two people have in common is that they love their gin and tonic and they find each other both drinking it on a Tuesday afternoon at their local pub and start talking? If there is no gin and tonic, are they both going to the bowling alley?
    Replaced = different person. Who you're making friends with seems irrelevant at this point.

    From your perspective yes. But in the mind of someone who has been a hermit all his life, never going outside to parties or hanging out with large groups of people, the only way they might mentally break themselves out of their shell is by reasoning that the alcohol might make them a different, perhaps cooler person. Otherwise they might just psych themselves out mentally to do anything sober.


    This has a good chance of being true. But it probably depends on the individual and I guess in retrospect neither mine nor your conjecture should be applied sweepingly across all people. Some people might need it, some might not. I know a few in both categories.
    Then we'll say that we disagree.


    I guess I should clarify that it is not completely necessary for alcohol to enter the social equation here. But I do think that may, may people find it necessary themselves. I do think that it still has a net positive effect for various reasons that I can't put out as facts (for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).
    What I am having in mind here, is a world where alcohol does not exist (never has, never will). Being the social creatures that humans are, they would still very much like to gather, like in the form of parties. The key here is that you cannot simply credit alcohol for things that happen when people are intoxicated. It would all happen - and does happen - without any form of intoxication. Some of the downsides, however, would not happen without alcohol; such as alcoholics, of course, but perhaps also DWI (that would of course depend on whether one would allow different sorts of drugs to exist in the thought experiment, and other things).

    Rather than focusing solely on the negative effects of alchol, I don't think that alcohol actually contributes to much good. It is more of an icing on the cake where it works positively.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  11. #11

    Default Re: War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Replaced = different person. Who you're making friends with seems irrelevant at this point.
    Ahh I see. But it seems you are coming from a fact of "humans are social, so they will make friends no matter what". I find that line of thinking flawed.

    Then we'll say that we disagree.
    Agreed. :D

    What I am having in mind here, is a world where alcohol does not exist (never has, never will). Being the social creatures that humans are, they would still very much like to gather, like in the form of parties. The key here is that you cannot simply credit alcohol for things that happen when people are intoxicated. It would all happen - and does happen - without any form of intoxication. Some of the downsides, however, would not happen without alcohol; such as alcoholics, of course, but perhaps also DWI (that would of course depend on whether one would allow different sorts of drugs to exist in the thought experiment, and other things).

    Rather than focusing solely on the negative effects of alchol, I don't think that alcohol actually contributes to much good. It is more of an icing on the cake where it works positively.
    Just because it does happen without alcohol to a large extend doesn't necessarily mean that if there was never any alcohol ever to begin with that it would still happen with the same frequency as it does today.

    A world that never had alcohol does not know of it's pleasurable effects. Our world does, and this makes it a large motivating factor to do things that people otherwise would not do. If there was never any alcohol then yeah, I'm sure everyone would be happy going to parties and doing something else instead. But the reality is that people know about alcohol and that it can be really fun and that it has some pleasurable side effects. So you have lots of people talking outside my dorm window going:

    "Are you going to Jeff's tonight?"
    "Is there alcohol?"
    "Nah, Jeff got busted by the cops at his party last time so he is just inviting us over for pizza and stuff."
    "I was planning on getting wasted tonight to celebrate, so I will pass this time."

    I hear a variant of this kind of conversation everyday at my uni. The world of no alcohol imo can't be used to make a point because the world of no alcohol from my understanding of what you are saying has people unaware of what alcohol is at all.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO