Tweedles stand up to be counted.

[hobbsyoyo]

Why exactly? Tobacco and alcohol aren't really that similar, but they're both as much of a drug as sugar caffeine is. Just less plentiful.

I would agree with you with this edit. Sugar is a bit of a stretch to label as a drug.

 

[Sonereal]

I don't agree with most of those things, with the exception of drugs like heroin that will almost certainly leave people in a state where they will use violence or theft in order to get more. Those should remain illegal. But I believe in a more liberal system of drug laws than what we have across the board.

People will use violence or theft to steal to pay for medical payments if the alternative is eternal debt and not being able to support their family.

That said, restricting hard drugs, alcohol and tobacco, and soda are three very, very different things (Alcohol and tobacco are fairly similar.)

And soda. All three cause averse health problems.

As for "They have a choice to get up twice" that's just a ridiculous justification. If I want to buy a 32 ounce soda, the government can mind its own doggone business.

"If I want to get an 8-ball, the government can mind its own doggone business!"

They're similar in amount of harm caused, not exactly the same. Although alcohol has more of a tendency to hurt other people due to drunk drivers. Still, its drunk driving, not alcohol in general, that needs to be prohibited and dealt with.

You can't go after one without going after the other in some way. They're not mutually independent.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You can't go after one without going after the other in some way. They're not mutually independent.

Yeah I smoke when I drink a lot more than I smoke normally (which is already a lot).

 

[Sonereal]

Yeah I smoke when I drink a lot more than I smoke normally (which is already a lot).

I meant drunk-driving and alcohol.

Damn it evolution. Why did you give me only two hands? How am I supposed to drink, smoke, and text while driving?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I meant drunk-driving and alcohol.

Damn it evolution. Why did you give me only two hands? How am I supposed to drink, smoke, and text while driving?

Well put, sir.
Solution:
Beer hat and talk-to-text.

 

[Sonereal]

I try talk-to-text but my radio is too loud, according to that very polite police officer who pulled me over because I didn't hear that ambulance behind me for half a mile.

 

[History_Buff]

They're similar in amount of harm caused, not exactly the same. Although alcohol has more of a tendency to hurt other people due to drunk drivers. Still, its drunk driving, not alcohol in general, that needs to be prohibited and dealt with.

I don't think you can write off smoking and driving. Tons of people do it, and I know people who have crashed their cars after dropping a cigarette. In a place where we have distracted driving laws, I can't believe smoking is still allowed while driving.

I would agree with you with this edit. Sugar is a bit of a stretch to label as a drug.

I don't know that it's that much of a stretch. It's certainly addictive like a drug, and if you consume in the quantities North Americans do nowadays, it probably is very harmful; we're just better at treating the effects now.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think you can write off smoking and driving. Tons of people do it, and I know people who have crashed their cars after dropping a cigarette. In a place where we have distracted driving laws, I can't believe smoking is still allowed while driving.

I don't disagree with this, although I think drunk driving is worse than either cigarettes + driving or texting while driving. Texting, IIRC, brings a fine or at worst a short jail sentence while drunk driving can get you years and years. It should depend how drunk you were how long you could go, and greatly increase the time if someone actually DOES get hurt, or for multiple offenses, and I don't think that its inappropriate that the sentence can be very lengthy in some cases. Should texting give you years in prison? I don't think so unless someone dies or is seriously injured (In which case manslaughter or something similar can be charged) but I may just be biased because that's how things have always been, which isn't a great argument. I think smoking would have more in common with texting than drinking as it relates to driving, but I could be wrong.

@Sonereal- I don't see why alcohol has to be banned in order for drunk driving to be banned. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Sonereal]

@Sonereal- I don't see why alcohol has to be banned in order for drunk driving to be banned. That makes no sense to me.

I also didn't say that.

I am saying that to solve one problem, you have to acknowledge the other is a problem. Even among teenagers, who legally should not even have alcohol. In order to reduce drunk driving, you have to increase penalties for drunk driving on one end and increase enforcement of alcohol purchasing on the other.

http://www.madd.org/statistics/

Teen alcohol use kills about 6000 people each year, more than all illegal drugs combined.

(Hingson and Kenkel, 2003) Full cite: Hingson, Ralph and D. Kenkel. "Social and Health Consequences of Underage Drinking." In press. As quoted in Institute of Medicine National Research Council of the National Academies. Bonnie, Richard J. and Mary Ellen O'Connell, eds. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

One in five teens binge drink. Only 1 in 100 parents believes his or her teen binge drinks.

(Institute of Medicine, 2003) Full cite: Institute of Medicine National Research Council of the National Academies. Bonnie, Richard J. and Mary Ellen O'Connell, eds. "Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

High school students who use alcohol or other substances are five times more likely to drop out of school or believe good grades are not important.

(NIDA, 2008) Full cite: National Institute on Drug Abuse. "Volume 1: Secondary School Students", National Survey Results on Drug Use from The Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1997. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.

An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest.

(Centers for Disease Control. “Vital Signs: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults — United States, 2010.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. October 4, 2011.)

Drunk driving costs the United States $132 billion a year.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2010

There are clearly problems just going after drunk driving.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree it should be harder for younger teens to buy alcohol, although I think 18 and above it should be legal. As for drunk driving, I do indeed support higher penalties. In fact, if you get caught doing it multiple times you should probably go for life if you harm someone in the process, and for ten or more years otherwise.

 

[Sonereal]

It doesn't matter how harsh the penalty is if the average drunk manages to drive drunk 80 times before the first arrest. You suggested what I was talking about, laws about alcohol directly to influence drunk driving. Lowering the drinking age would just offset any harsher laws passed regarding drinking and driving.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you want to make the age of adulthood 21, I'm not going to stop you, but if you can go off and get killed for your country, buy cigarettes, own a home, get married, exc., I see no logic by which adults should not be allowed to make the choice to drink........

I don't think going after alcohol is the right answer to stopping drunk driving. I think higher penalties against drunk driving is the way to do it.

I think the absolute minimum (for a first time offense) should be 3-4 years behind bars. It should be a felony.

 

[peter grimes]

[blah blah blah]
But would lead to the government "Encouraging" (Enforcing) healthy behavior.

This is the crux of your position, I think. You assume that any top-down policy instrument that's designed to "encourage' a behavior is tantamount to, or will result in, "enforcement" of that behavior.

Of course, you have reason to fear that. You've seen it happen. Religions do it all the time.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Religions do, but religions do not actually have the power to enforce their views. Governments do. Thus making them much, much worse.

As for "Encouraging = Enforcing" I'll give you that that's not true, but Bloomberg is "Enforcing." "Encouraging" would be releasing a statement saying "Hey, soda is really really bad for you so its not smart to drink more than 16 ounces of it at one time" or something. Saying "You can't buy a soda that's more than 16 ounces" is enforcing.

 

[Sonereal]

Religions do, but religions do not actually have the power to enforce their views.

They just have lots of money and political influence. No actual power.

 

[History_Buff]

I don't disagree with this, although I think drunk driving is worse than either cigarettes + driving or texting while driving. Texting, IIRC, brings a fine or at worst a short jail sentence while drunk driving can get you years and years. It should depend how drunk you were how long you could go, and greatly increase the time if someone actually DOES get hurt, or for multiple offenses, and I don't think that its inappropriate that the sentence can be very lengthy in some cases. Should texting give you years in prison? I don't think so unless someone dies or is seriously injured (In which case manslaughter or something similar can be charged) but I may just be biased because that's how things have always been, which isn't a great argument. I think smoking would have more in common with texting than drinking as it relates to driving, but I could be wrong.

Just FYI, unless you actually hit someone, even if you get caught drunk driving, you're not going to wind up in jail. They'll suspend your drivers license for a year, or possibly more, but unless you actually wind up in an accident, the penalties aren't particularly severe. Nor, I would argue, should they be much more severe; it's not the kind of problem punishment can solve.

Also, the majority of people out there drinking and driving aren't plastered. They're almost certainly in the .06-.10 range. Which of course excludes all the people who drive at less than that (which includes myself sometimes probably).

 

[peter grimes]

Religions do, but religions do not actually have the power to enforce their views. Governments do. Thus making them much, much worse.

As for "Encouraging = Enforcing" I'll give you that that's not true, but Bloomberg is "Enforcing." "Encouraging" would be releasing a statement saying "Hey, soda is really really bad for you so its not smart to drink more than 16 ounces of it at one time" or something. Saying "You can't buy a soda that's more than 16 ounces" is enforcing.

No, you're reaching here. Encourage is exactly what the over-size soda container rule does. It doesn't prevent people from consuming as much sugar water as they like - which is what enforcing would do. Rather, it makes the person have to actively choose to consume more than, I think, 24 ounces per container. You're cries of liberty in exchange for security seem silly in this light.

You can go ahead and be against it, but at least come up with a worthwhile reason. While you're doing that, the rest of us will be secure in the data that shows that portion size matters: the larger the plate, the more you eat whether you want to or not.

In fact, I'm going to reframe this whole discussion.

The container ban is a curb on corporate manipulation of unwitting consumers who have been tricked by their own fallible psychologies into paying far more than they should for a product they don't even want. This rule helps to the consumer to make an informed decision, rather then being subjected to subliminal-style manipulation that resulted in greater profits for tax-subsidized multinational factory food conglomerates.

This is about protecting the tax payer, clearly.

EDIT:
Religions don't have the power to enforce their views??? Are you serious???? They've got people like you acting as footsoldiers in culture wars of their own making. They are a tax-payer subsidized mafia that is effectively exempt from laws governing horrid things like child rape. People kill other people because of imagined affronts their... their honor? It's usually not their property, usually it's ideas. People kill eachother over ideas about whose magician is real-er, and they do it without being paid. They VOLUNTEER for it. They have no power? Their power is so vast and infiltrative you're blind to it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just FYI, unless you actually hit someone, even if you get caught drunk driving, you're not going to wind up in jail. They'll suspend your drivers license for a year, or possibly more, but unless you actually wind up in an accident, the penalties aren't particularly severe. Nor, I would argue, should they be much more severe; it's not the kind of problem punishment can solve.

Also, the majority of people out there drinking and driving aren't plastered. They're almost certainly in the .06-.10 range. Which of course excludes all the people who drive at less than that (which includes myself sometimes probably).

I guess what defnes "Drunk" needs a defining as well. In America its not even drunkenness unless its at .08.

I'd actually agree prison is a bad choice for a first offense after thinking about it. First time you should lose your license for several years, second time lose your license for life, and if you manage to do it a third time, you should go to prison for life. If someone is harmed, those first two can be raised some.

One guy I saw on the news managed to get 6 months even though he crippled someone and it was his third time. I thought "Life sentence" was almost clear cut there, but apparently not..

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, you're reaching here. Encourage is exactly what the over-size soda container rule does. It doesn't prevent people from consuming as much sugar water as they like - which is what enforcing would do. Rather, it makes the person have to actively choose to consume more than, I think, 24 ounces per container. You're cries of liberty in exchange for security seem silly in this light.

You can go ahead and be against it, but at least come up with a worthwhile reason. While you're doing that, the rest of us will be secure in the data that shows that portion size matters: the larger the plate, the more you eat whether you want to or not.

In fact, I'm going to reframe this whole discussion.

The container ban is a curb on corporate manipulation of unwitting consumers who have been tricked by their own fallible psychologies into paying far more than they should for a product they don't even want. This rule helps to the consumer to make an informed decision, rather then being subjected to subliminal-style manipulation that resulted in greater profits for tax-subsidized multinational factory food conglomerates.

This is about protecting the tax payer, clearly.

Its 16 unless they changed it. But as for people eating whether they want to or not, that is a personal choice. Your argument reeks of nanny statism.

And I'd argue the government has no right to "Help us" make choices. Keep us informed, yes. But I don't need nanny bloomberg or any other nanny mayor telling me what size soda I can and cannot purchase. that's ridiculous.

And I think its insulting to people's intelligence when you act like they don't have a choice.

As for tax-subsidized, that's more a problem with the fact that the government is giving subsidies, which I disagree with, than anything else.

 

[peter grimes]

Its 16 unless they changed it. But as for people eating whether they want to or not, that is a personal choice. Your argument reeks of nanny statism.

And I'd argue the government has no right to "Help us" make choices. Keep us informed, yes. But I don't need nanny bloomberg or any other nanny mayor telling me what size soda I can and cannot purchase. that's ridiculous.

And I think its insulting to people's intelligence when you act like they don't have a choice.

As for tax-subsidized, that's more a problem with the fact that the government is giving subsidies, which I disagree with, than anything else.

More blindness, I see.

First question: What does the term 'Nanny State' mean?
Second question: Why is that bad?
Third question: Why does the government have no right to help us make choices? It's already an integral part of what we expect, isn't it? That's what many of the labelling laws are about to begin with - preventing profit-seeking corporations who have no accountability from putting whatever they want into our food, for instance. They have to tell us what's in there. Government 'helps' us make choices by regulating the packaging of political ads "I'm peter grimes, and I approve this message". They help us become informed by providing education at no cost to the student. They help is make choices by deciding what language(s) are allowed on road signs, and the sizes and fonts allowed. They help us make choices by incentivizing certain products (milk will never have sales tax) and disincentivizing others (cigarettes will always have sales taxes).

But back to Bloomberg, now.
Why do you keep going back to this 'choice' thing? No choice has been removed. You are free to drink as much as you like. There is ZERO restriction on consumption.

As for the rest, I think it's pretty obvious you aren't familiar with the fragile nature of human's decision making procedures. We are very easily manipulated. It's not an insult to say that, but it IS insulting to claim otherwise without being at all familiar with the data. Read up.

And the tax subsidy is effectively negated by Bloomberg's container rule - why aren't you cheering? He's saving me money!