I am a conservative

[pax]

Well I support legalization but with strong regulation. You wont find heroin and coke next to the advil on pharmacy shelves. But managing addistc can be better then letting commit crimes, sell drugs and their bodies on the street and manage their own consumption which too often leads to death...

Now imagine clinics. The free drug for abusers is then managed. Interventions of all kinds can happen in a clinic setting. But mostly think of the drug cyle that will largely be broken. Getting the pushers off the street to support a habit will likely see the cycle drop to marginal what it is today.

Casual users can get prescriptions... And they wont have to fear dirty drugs...

The fact we have a huge corrupt system today where billions in drugs are imported mostly throuhg established businesses which in turn affect law and order will suddenly be a much lessser prob. And if anything the european experiments have shown drug use does not go up.

There are so many benefits to regulating instead of criminalizing drugs its hard to list them all here.

 

[RussSchultz]

no more is it fetus pumped with nutrients to sustain it, but now a living creature which, though its will to live, ingests nutrients on its own accord; therefore intitled to all the rights that come with being a human.

But I/my wife would have to hand feed a child until about 6 months or so, and care for it for another several years or so before it can really exist on its own without dying.

What's the difference killing it then instead of moments before it comes out of the womb?

p.s. I'm sorry for saying you're "for" late term abortions. I should have said "you're for letting them happen".

 

[kyleb]

the difference is the child isn't having food forced into it's system; you are just bring the bottle/tit/spoon to its mouth. not to mention the whole breating of air thing which is part of what makes a person fall under the clasification of mammal, none of that in the womb.

 

[Silent_One]

DC wrote:

People keep falling back on protecting the children (which is the parent's responsibility) In many other countries, it is legal for children to drink alcohol, especially if supervised by an adult. In others, children are even permitted to purchase alcohol (usually 15 or 16). But some countries don't even have that restriction and the result has not been to turn that country into a nation of alcoholics.

Not entirely true See http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=148848&highlight=alcohol#148848

me wrote:

Regarding european study and the effects of alcohol I have found this:

Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analysis of the Literature from 1960 to 2000
http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol/pdf/DAGE1999.pdf

Page 220

Issue 3

Issue: "Europeans teen are allowed to drink from an early age, yet those countries don't have the alcohol-related problems we do. What we need are fewer restriction, not more.

Responce: "The idea that Europeans do not have alcohol-related problems is a myth. European youth may be at less risk of traffic crashes because youth drive less frequently in Europ than in the United States. Europeans have higher legal driving ages, more expensive automobiles and greater access to public transportation. Looking beyond traffic crashes, however, European countries have similar or higher rates of alcohol-related problems than compared with the United States. For example, in 1990, France and Italy had higher per capita alcohol consumption and higher rates of cirrhosis deaths than the United States. Per capita consumption in France and Italy was 12.7 and 8.7 liters of alcohol, respectively, compared with 7.5 in the United States. Corrhosis death rates in France and Italy were 26.8 and 17.0 per 100,000, respectively, whereas the U.S. rate was 11.6 (Edwards et al., 1994). European countries are now looking to the United States for research and experience regarding the age-21 policy. Europeans are initiating the debate on the most appropriate age for legal access to alcohol.

 

[kyleb]

ever been to any European countries Silent_One? i have been to most of them and i wouldn't consider any to be a nation of alcoholics.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

ever been to any European countries Silent_One? i have been to most of them and i wouldn't consider any to be a nation of alcoholics.

Hmmm...I'm looking for the post where Silent_One says or implies that...can't find it.

 

[kyleb]

are you talking about implying that he has been to Europe? no he doesn't do that; rather, his commentary implies quite the opposite which is why i fell compelled to confirm my suspicions.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

are you talking about implying that he has been to Europe? no he doesn't do that; rather, his commentary implies quite the opposite which is why i fell compelled to confirm my suspicions.

No, i'm talking about this: where in his commentary does he say or imply any European nation to be a nation of alcoholics, irrespecitve if he's been to any or not?

 

[kyleb]

he attempts to dispute DemoCoder's comment which states exactly the opposite.

got logic?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

he attempts to dispute DemoCoder's comment which states exactly the opposite.

got logic?

Yup...in reponse to DC's comment, silent_One said

"not entirely true". Which most sane people would interpret that as something along the lines of "I'm not saying they're a nation of alcoholics, but there is clear evidence that supports higher levels of "irresponsible drinking" in Europe. In other words, why choose auto related alcohol statistics as the measure of "alcoholism"?

Logic dictates that he's primarily disputing DC's "definition" of what makes for an "alcoholic state."

Edit...DC didn't really "define" what constitutes an alcoholic state or not...but the point still stands. Generally, everyone points to US DUI statistics as "the problem."

 

[kyleb]

lol, i'm sorry you have such a week grip on what what constitutes sanity, but the sane interpretation of "not entirely true" is something along the lines of "false to an extent". where as in no case has the lack of alcohol restrictions in a European country turned it into a nation of alcoholics, so DemoCoder's statement is entirely true. furthermore, he never argued one way or another who has more drinking problems by any means at all; he simply pointed out that the lesser restrictions in Europe has not turned them into a society of drunken madmen.

 

[DemoCoder]

There is a difference between "alcoholism" and "drinking alcohol". France has high rates of alcohol consumption, because French people consume alcohol at the dinner table, including their kids, whereas, Americans consume most of their alcohol at bars.

But there is a big difference between consuming one of two drinks at a meal, every day, 365 days a year, and *alcoholism* which is getting piss drunk everyday. I should know since my father was an alcoholic.

 

[Sazar]

There is a difference between "alcoholism" and "drinking alcohol". France has high rates of alcohol consumption, because French people consume alcohol at the dinner table, including their kids, whereas, Americans consume most of their alcohol at bars.

But there is a big difference between consuming one of two drinks at a meal, every day, 365 days a year, and *alcoholism* which is getting piss drunk everyday. I should know since my father was an alcoholic.

most of the french consumption is from wine as well.. especially the red variety which has health benefits apparently for them (though it does make them surrender unconditionally with alarming regularity)...

the us drinkers on the other hand are consuming beer and liquors... generally in binges @ the bar...

 

[Silent_One]

kyleb wrote:

ever been to any European countries Silent_One?

Yep. Germany, Fance, Great Britian/Ireland.

i have been to most of them and i wouldn't consider any to be a nation of alcoholics.

Neither would I off hand (although the Irish have a LOT of pubs!) Do you consider the US a nation of alcholics? I don't really, although we do have our share of problems.
But as you have guessed that not the point

Joe wrote:

...in reponse to DC's comment, silent_One said

"not entirely true". Which most sane people would interpret that as something along the lines of "I'm not saying they're a nation of alcoholics, but there is clear evidence that supports higher levels of "irresponsible drinking" in Europe.

Close...
To be clear - if anyone bothered to read the thread were I got my quote from they would have also read this...

It was stated that the legal drinking age in Belgium is 16. However, the legal driving age is 18. All professors indicated that alcohol consumption is seen as part of the Belgian culture. There is no negative stereotype attached to the act of drinking. In fact, wine and/or beer was served to our class during lunch and dinner at almost every meal. U.S. culture generally prohibits serving alcohol to students at lunch and dinner unless it is requested. One professor remarked that children are exposed to alcohol at an early age in order to reduce the excitement and glamour that could be associated with drinking. It is believed that by exposing children (age 10 - 17) to alcohol, they will be less likely to experiment with and abuse it when they get older.
.
One of the professors was noticeably perplexed by my questions. When she was asked about the prevalence of alcoholism in Belgium, she responded, "you don’t see any drunks in the streets do you?" Her response indicated that alcohol abuse is not a problem in Belgium. However, in an earlier discussion, the same professor indicated that there had been an increasing amount of alcohol related driving deaths on Belgian highways. She stated that the government was beginning to toughen up drunk driving laws

http://www.geocities.com/bourbonstreet/2640/topic.htm

I believe that the increase in alcohol related traffic accidents in some European countries is partly a result of the availability of no age limit for the consumption of alcohol. Of course this is IMHO
DC wrote:

But there is a big difference between consuming one of two drinks at a meal, every day, 365 days a year, and *alcoholism* which is getting piss drunk everyday. I should know since my father was an alcoholic.

Wrong. The notion that all alcoholics get piss drunk everyday is simply not true. Some are functional alcoholics. Again, from the last link -

Summary Personal interviews with Belgian and Holland natives seemed to support statistical research with regard to the prevalence and liberalization of alcohol and drug use norms, laws and national trends. Europe seems to be moving in the direction of "harm reduction" strategies by making "soft drugs" legal and increasing opportunities for treatment. Although statistics on drunk driving deaths in Europe were not found, personal accounts of increasing traffic fatalities seemed to indicate that it is becoming more of a problem. .
There was a definite lack of knowledge about the availability and function of alcohol and drug treatment services by the persons interviewed. In addition, there also seemed to be strong stereotypes of alcoholics and alcoholism. More than one doctoral level professor equated alcoholism with someone who is publicly intoxicated and poorly mannered. This stereotype is based on ignorance of the disease of addiction. Most alcoholics (and addicts) are employed, have families and are not perceived as alcoholic or addicted by others. In addition, most alcoholics would never publicly drink in the streets. Belgium’s all encompassing welfare state would even prevent "publicly drunken alcoholics" from having to live or drink in the streets. Belgium’s comprehensive welfare system covers 99.9% of the population.

As for your father...I'm sorry that happened to him, and to you. I too know what that's like. I'm am a alcoholic (have not had a drink in 9 plus years, and still going strong 8) )

 

[DemoCoder]

My father was a functional alcoholic as well. He got up everyday for work at 6am. But every night, without fail, he would go to the bar at 9pm and come home smashed at 11-12, often, the bar would call us because he was too drunk to walk and would fall off his bar stool. Now, try to imagine the impact this has on a family or 4 kids on a lower middle class salary with a drunk vaporizing a few hundred $$$ a month on booze, AND, verbally abusing his family to boot, while causing all of us stress worrying about him every night. He also died relatively young at 62. His father died at 77.

This is far and away different than French people having wine at dinner with their kids or American teenagers getting blitzed in binge drinking.

That said, I am not in favor of banning alcohol, or even restricting it from kids (as long as supervised by an adult). Addiction can be treated much cheaper in our society vs murder, violence, and disrupted economics caused by banning drugs.

The drug war, not drugs themselves, have been devasting on the poor in this country, they have made drug dealing a low-tech, lucrative, easy to get into business for poor people with no options. Have many people have been murdered, how much handgun violence is attributable to black-on-black drug deal street justice, that simply would not exist if the sale of drugs was a legal activity, which could be regulated by the courts and police?

 

[kyleb]

Do you consider the US a nation of alcholics?

no not at all, and i don't think that loosening alcohol regulations would change that either.

accedently submited what my next post in an edit of this one instead

 

[Silent_One]

no not at all, and i don't think that loosening alcohol regulations would change that either.

It would. Maybe not to the extent we would be considered a "Nation of Alcoholics" but keep in mind America is different that Eourpoe (although as I said their starting to increase their consumption amounst the youth), and we party hard. Alcohol ralated accidents would go up. And inevitably so would alcoholism.

 

[Silent_One]

DC wrote:

That said, I am not in favor of banning alcohol, or even restricting it from kids (as long as supervised by an adult). Addiction can be treated much cheaper in our society vs murder, violence, and disrupted economics caused by banning drugs.

I too am not in favor of banning alcohol. However, age restrictions that are in place are needed. Deaths from auto accidents clearly are less than when the drinking age was 18. Drugs (other than alcohol) are another matter, and IMHO could possibly be legalised with tightly regulated controls.

Kyleb wrote:

and i don't think that loosening alcohol regulations would change that either.

http://www.teensarenotadisease.com/teens_in_europe_drinking_too_much.htm

Something radical is happening across Europe. Overall, European adults are drinking less, especially in such countries as In the U.K., kids younger than 16 drink twice as much as they did 10 years ago, chugging five pints of beer a week. In Ireland 59 percent of men and 26 percent of women between 18 and 29 binge-drink at least once a week. In Denmark, the number of 15-year-olds drinking at least once a week has spiked from 20 percent to 39 percent for girls and from 37 percent to 50 percent for boys since 1988. The French have never shied away from a Pernod or a good glass of wine—in 1990, 45 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds in France were drinkers, a lot by anybody’s standards. Now the figure is 70 percent. And it’s no longer just wine; half of those polled have switched to hard booze. What’s more, 70 percent of girls and 80 percent of boys had their first drink at the tender age of 11France, where wine and the good life have always gone hand in hand. Yet Europe’s teenagers are drinking more and more—and they’re doing it at a younger age. Worse, it’s not just drinking—it’s binge drinking. Gunning’s chugfest was hardly unusual. Nowadays, having a dozen drinks is almost de rigueur for a weekend out. And the social costs—drunken driving, delinquency, suicides, fights, teen pregnancy—are mounting. The trend is fueled in part by slick alcohol advertising campaigns, new beverage products that appeal to youngsters and an emerging globo-party culture promoted in Western teen movies and at the raves and drink-sponsored rock festivals that have become so popular in recent years.
The statistics are truly mind-boggling. The surge has been no less radical in the East. Alcohol consumption has always been high in the former communist countries of Europe. But now it’s run amok. Drinking among young people has quadrupled in Lithuania, doubled in the Czech Republic and risen 25 percent in Slovakia. In Hungary, alcoholism has risen threefold since the fall of communism; it is now common for children to have their first drink at 12 or 13, instead of 17 or 18. In scenic Prague, bars now cater to busloads of Western tourists who arrive expressly to party—but it’s not just the foreigners who are drinking to excess. Across the country, where beer is cheaper than soft drinks, children as young as 11 are showing up in hospital emergency rooms, dropped off by strangers who have found them passed out in their own vomit.

Now to say that this dramatic increased alcohol consumption will not lead to the increase in alcoholism is just bilnd and stupid. Indeed European nations are struggling with this growing problem right now-

Danish legislators imposed the first-ever age requirement on alcohol purchases in 1998, —setting it at 15. In Poland, where 71 percent of children 11 to 15 admitted drinking alcohol at least once, lawmakers passed a tough new anti-alcoholism law in 2001 aimed at reducing youth drinking.

Why would these governments make such laws if their was no problem? Clearly there is a growing problem

 

[kyleb]

Do you consider the US a nation of alcholics?

no not at all, and i don't think that loosening alcohol regulations would change that either.

It would.

ok, you dissagree with me. let us discuss this dissagreement:

Maybe not to the extent we would be considered a "Nation of Alcoholics"

nevermind, you backed off your dissagreement on your own.

as for the article; i have a hard time accepting the creditability of unaccredited survey results, especially when they are missed with blatant dramatization.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

as for the article; i have a hard time accepting the creditability of unaccredited survey results, especially when they are missed with blatant dramatization.

Slightly OT...you just dismissed practically every known "study" known to man.