Should we ban alcohol again?

I support this motion

I think more importantly religion should be banned. It kills more people then ... well... ANYTHING.

Dumb. Link?

One of these again. One....Prohibition didn't work. Two.....moderate use does have benefits. Three.....why do people want government parenting. Damn.

How about a picture?

@Serraph105: Which was because they were mad at Western countries getting involved in the ME....duh.

Or diarrhea, or the poor evolution of our teeth in relation to our jawline, or numerous parasites, viruses and bacterial infections. Religion has killed it's millions, and needs to continue to lose it's hallowed place within all areas. It is not the most prolific killer of humans.

It is worth noting that when religions are suppressed, they become more monstrous, same way they become monstrous when they are the one's doing the oppressing. As Freud postulated in the Future of An Illusion, religion is not likely to go away when people are still afraid of death, the dark, and things we do not understand.

And LJS9502_basic are you trolling the stupidity of his original statement, or are you being serious?

@Serraph105 said:

@senses_fail_06 said:

@Skarwolf said:

I think more importantly religion should be banned. It kills more people then ... well... ANYTHING.

Dumb. Link?

How about a picture?

I don't think we're even close:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

I'm not trolling....if you think 911 happened over religion and not political issues then nothing is going to help change that.

So if the root was not Islam, please explain the Muslim empires of war, the Barbary Raids, The consistent murder and pogroms against Jews in the Middle East, The murder of christians all over Africa, and the indiscriminate murdering of Hindus and Buddhists in the Kashmir region of India.

Also explain to me why Osama Bin Laden, a man whose familial wealth is in US banks, whose family members live in the USA, and who has no history of being oppressed by US foreign policy, led a Jihad against the US.

Please explain why people of all other religions in the world who are oppressed by US foreign policy, and ravaged by poverty, do not bomb non combatants as well.

So you post your opinion without documentation and think that matters. Come on dude you know better.

@hillelslovak: many of your arguments are simply attributed to the fault of religion for argument's sake. The problems in the Kashmir for instance. Is it really Hindus and Muslims killing each other "over religion" or is it that the territory has been disputed ever since India was divided?

You made the positive claim, the burden of proof is upon you. And I think you know that. You are free to refute my claims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_empires_and_dynasties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-Jewish_pogroms_by_Muslims This only shows a couple dozen. There are hundreds of lesser examples, and they continue today.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/christian-attacks.aspx This is a gigantic list, and only goes back to 2001.

persecution of Hindus and Buddhists in the East:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html a larger primer on the Muslim conquests, and their religious justification for doing so.

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/ an overall bodycount of numerous Muslim conquests and massacres, with India and The East included

Osama Bin Laden and his family

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat58/sub386/item2359.html

On islam being a unique threat, and debunking the myth of poverty and oppression causing Jihad:

http://markhumphrys.com/root.cause.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/administration-s-poverty-islamic-terrorism-link-has-been-challenged

No... Bann soda instead.

Muslims were killing Hindus and Buddhists long before the partition.......

@hillelslovak: and people have fought over land before religion existed...

And when your religion explicitly tells you to seize all land you can find, as well as convert, enslave or kill everyone who does not believe what you do?

I'm sorry guys, I didn't mean to start all that. Yes I believe religion was a factor in the 9-11 attacks. I don't however mean to say that religion is the cause of more death than anything else. I was simply making the point that religion causes a lot of death and that it's not exactly a dumb claim to make.

@hillelslovak: Yeah not what I asked you.

Correct. Humans have killed over land and resources more than any other issue throughout history.

Are you guys just going to ignore all of Islam's deeds that were about spreading the faith? The Muslims were slaughtering in Kashmir before the partitioning. Also, if it is all about land, why are the Muslims hemming in Jews on all sides, with the Jews returning the favor on the Gaza strip? Why this tiny, insignificant speck of land?

You do know they are fighting over land....right?

And why are they fighting over that specific piece of land? Because their holy books each give them a right to it.

YOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Get back on track, people! Seriously, we have enough shit political threads already without hijacking a thread that has NOTHING to do with 9/11!

The height of stupidity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome.

Doesn't matter to me, I rarely ever drink, negatives far outweigh the positives.

Some people never learn...

What have we learned about prohibition?

• It has very little impact on demand
• It has very little impact on supply
• It creates violent crime by putting a very profitable business in the hands of criminals instead of legitimate businesses

Seriously, during the first decade fo the 1900s, the murder rate in the U.S. was around 5.5 per 100,000 and jumped to 8.4 per after the Harrison Narcotics act was enacted a decade later.

Not only did people continute to consume alcohol, but many ended up, knowingly or unknowingly, consuming wood alcohol (methly alcohol) and poisioning themselves. It's the same thing we're seeing with the opiate epidemic today. People can't get their vicodin so they're turning to herion (often laced with fentanyl) and overdosing.

We've got millions of cars and trucks on our roads spitting out noxious fumes from their exhaust, and you want to complain about the occasional exposure to second hand smoke?

@bforrester420: Sure. Why not? That's a stawman argument. Me complaining about one problem doesn't mean I don't care about other problems going on in the world.

@Archangel3371: I'm just pointing out that the occasional second hand smoke exposure is so insignificant to not warrant a complaint. I mean, it is within your ability to remove yourself from those exposures.

@bforrester420: Well as I said before in this thread it's not always possible to reasonably avoid such occurrences. Personally I don't find second hand smoke insignificant in the first place though.

But prohibition did what it was suppose to do, it reduced consumption of alcohol. However the real issue is all of the vices and issues prohibition advocates tied to consumption of alcohol actually became worse as it turned many previously law abiding citizens into criminals, and naturally once they crossed that line there's no real incentive to prevent them from engaging in other illegal activities as well.

I've always maintained that law is only effective when overwhelming majority of population agree with it. If a significant portion of citizens don't believe in the legitimacy of the law then you risk turning large segment of the population into criminals giving rise to criminal activities and associate problems that brings. Prohibition is the perfect analogy for why gun ban would be disastrous as well.

Should we ban alcohol again?

Pretty much demonstrates why banning alcohol serves no real purpose.

@sonicare:

I would literally kill myself if it was banned. That or take up weed or smoking.

@Serraph105:

Not every religion caused 9/11. That's like banning black people for a few murderers

Or banning guns for a few mass shootings. Safe to say it's lazy and shortsighted anytime you attribute guilt over a large portion of the population for criminal behavior of a few individuals.

@bmanva:

Exactly!

No it did not. Consumption went down for a month or two, then skyrocketed when speakeasys, homes stills, processing factories and boat routes were set up. That was one of the main perverse comedies at play during prohibition.

@killered3: @bmanva: Please see the below response.

There's really no way to tell either way. Once alcohol production/sales went underground, there was absolutely no way to track it's consumption. I mean, it wasn't like the bootleggers paid taxes for their illicit sales.

It has been shown, however, that the death rate from causes that are can be linked to alcohol abuse (suicide and liver ailments, for example) did decrease duing the years after Prohibition was enacted, which casually suggest a drop in consumption. Personally, however, I do not believe those positives outweigh the negatives introduced with the emergence of organized crime.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

Those links support the argument that consumption was decreased from pre-Prohibition levels. Yes, consumption dropped sharply at first, but then rose to 60-70% of the pre-Prohibition consumption levels.

Talk about missing the point.

For me, I rather have sex with a bunch of girls then Alcohol. If they want to banned it, fine by me.

I got the point. Critiquing one portion of one's statement is not ignoring the rest of the statement.

@Serraph105:

On Earth, a million things can kill you. Animals, disease, famine, people, Earthquakes, nuclear weapons, bio weapons, hell, even disastrous weather!

Sure, if you want to resort yourself to the level of a grammar nazi and scrutinize every minor details of someone's post, go right ahead.

So critiquing one claim within your statement is akin to nitpicking your grammar? Please explain.

@killered3: why yes, yes indeed.