24th September 2009, 11:12 PM
The standard defense would probably be "well, we tried banning alcohol in the 1920s and it didn't work out so well", but yeah, that is a good point. Alcohol does more damage than any illegal drug because it's legal (without a permit or prescription or anything) and strong. Legal drugs are going to be used more than illegal ones... and yes, many people die because of alcohol, with drunk driving being one of the primary ways. Should it be more regulated? It WOULD be in the public good, yes, but it'd never pass and is pushing into slightly harder to defend territory because of how alcohol hurts others.
I mean, with smoking as I said it's direct -- that second or third hand smoke floats over there and hurts other peoples' health. Every person who is smoking is hurting others if anyone else is around. But alcohol... that's not so direct. It's only if the person is stupid or irresponsible that bad things happen. Of course when drunk people are GOING to be stupid and irresponsible, but still, it IS a different situation...
Still, yeah of course it would be great to find a way to keep drunk people from driving anywhere near as much as they do. It would help the country a lot. But is there such a way, short of a ban on alcohol that probably wouldn't work well enough and wouldn't pass?
I mean, with smoking as I said it's direct -- that second or third hand smoke floats over there and hurts other peoples' health. Every person who is smoking is hurting others if anyone else is around. But alcohol... that's not so direct. It's only if the person is stupid or irresponsible that bad things happen. Of course when drunk people are GOING to be stupid and irresponsible, but still, it IS a different situation...
Still, yeah of course it would be great to find a way to keep drunk people from driving anywhere near as much as they do. It would help the country a lot. But is there such a way, short of a ban on alcohol that probably wouldn't work well enough and wouldn't pass?