Abolition of Alcohol

[TransmutingSoul]

So the trend in the OP so far is that it can not be abolished.

Main reason so far is that I still want to have the freedom of choice to drink, that it is a human right obligation to partake of a substance known to cause harm to a significant portion of the human race as long as I do it responsibly and those that can not should get help.

I see this is the underlying issue, it is a lack of willingness to personally adress other people's experiences, trying to stay aloof from the harm it causes, in preference of self based reasons.

This is why I offered in the OP it is a killer of humanity.

Our humanity is founded on our willingness to help all people, regardless of gender, race, religion or nationality.

So if we could make the easy decision not to partake of substances that cause harm to a significant part of the human race, why would we not make that decision apart from self based reasons?

True liberty is submission unto a code of laws based in virtue and morality.

Regards Tony

 

[JustGeorge]

So the trend in the OP so far is that it can not be abolished.

Main reason so far is that I still want to have the freedom of choice to drink, that it is a human right obligation to partake of a substance known to cause harm to a significant portion of the human race as long as I do it responsibly and those that can not should get help.

I see this is the underlying issue, it is a lack of willingness to personally adress other people's experiences, trying to stay aloof from the harm it causes, in preference of slef based reasons.

This is why I offered in the OP it is a killer of humanity.

Our humanity is founded on our willingness to help all people, regardless of gender, race, religion or nationality.

So if we could make the easy decision not to partake of substances that cause harm to a significant part of the human race, why would we not make that decision apart from self based reasons?

True liberty is submission unto a code of laws based in virtue and morality.

Regards Tony

The way I see it, not everyone is ready to make their decisions "for the good of humanity". Often this is because they have needs that aren't getting met themselves. Most of us can't worry about the hungry guy two blocks over when we ourselves are starving. We can judge and tell a person not to be so small, but one will have more success if they simply try to address the problems of all without worrying that not everyone else is doing it, too.

Perhaps then, the goal should be to find ways to meet the needs of all?

 

[Secret Chief]

Abolish drugs sex and alcohol but the icecap is melting away so we concentrate on these trivial things in comparison to the very large gorilla in the room.

Does it have to be one or the other?

 

[Etritonakin]

A surprising number of foods naturally contain alcohol -from burger rolls to soy sauce.

Drinks obviously contain more -as the point is to catch a buzz.

A beer, cocktail, wine after a hard day's work is just awesome -and alcohol definitely helps some be relaxed and more sociable.

I don't think abolition is possible, necessary or effective.

If moderate use is not harmful -and abuse is harmful to individuals as well as others, then moderation should be written into the law and taken seriously.
It is more possible to regulate how much alcohol is allowed/available to each individual at bars, stores, etc., than to expect all individuals to moderate.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes, so far most attempts have failed, and possibly increased the usage (forbitten fruit syndrome).
But, maybe there are some other methods that may prove to be more effective - has cigarette smoking decreased due to all the restrictions in the past 10 yrs??

In the UK various measures have driven a big decline in cigarette use.

- Smoking in England declines by more than 1bn cigarettes per year

 

[England my lionheart]

Does it have to be one or the other?

not really but it’s acceptable to go for the wrong one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see you have your choices in life and I do not judge them and well done on being a carer, it is not an easy task. I also have son that is in a relationship, I accept his choices and do not try to change them because I have accepted a faith that has laws in that regard, so that is how I see that subject.

I see the faith I have embraced offers that there are many people that are not Baha'is that aremost likely more Baha'i than those that have accepted.

So to me it boils down to relative truth, what are we willing as an individual to embrace from all the God given Morals and Vitues and what do we see are Morals and Virtues. It is obvious that our nature and nurture mould our understanding of attributes and morals.

Alcohol consumption has the same issues. The OP is to discuss the moral aspects of its consumption and if people suffer great harm from it, is it morally right to continue to produce it for recreational use?

Regards Tony

Tony, the fact of the matter is this: we humans can abuse absolutely anything. And I am sorry, but it is my belief that all presumed "God given Morals and Virtues" are -- in actual reality -- man-made.

Look, most of us, with just a little thought, can know what is right and wrong with respect to our relationships with others. And it is very true that nearly every religion and philosophy in human history has expressed some form of the "Golden Rule." (What we have much more trouble with is extending our versions of the GR beyond our immediate family, community or tribe, but that's just a matter of how you perceive the world, and your place in it.)

It is a fact that a moderate consumption of wine (and coffee, chocolate and most other comestibles) is healthy. And any of those things, consumed to excess or to the exclusion of each other, is unhealthy.

Humans have been making (and breaking) rules about all of those things -- and sex, and art, and exercise, and war and peace and everything else -- for as long as the species has existed.

The best hope for any of us to learn the truth: teach people what eating a little chocolate can do for you, and what eating a lot can do against you. Same for everything else. And then let people live as they see fit.

We needn't assume that living (i.e. not dying) until the very last possible moment based on your genetic makeup is the very best thing to do. It may well, in fact, be better to at least enjoy some of your life -- even if that means giving up a little of it in terms of days, weeks, months or years.

And that's long been part of the problem: too many "religious" tend to see enjoyment as being somehow inherently connected with sin. You know the old fundamentalist Christian saying: "Life is not meant to be enjoyed -- it's meant to be gotten on with!"? Well, I say that's rubbish. This is the life you get -- the only one. And if you don't enjoy it -- well that's your own fault.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So the trend in the OP so far is that it can not be abolished.

Main reason so far is that I still want to have the freedom of choice to drink, that it is a human right obligation to partake of a substance known to cause harm to a significant portion of the human race as long as I do it responsibly and those that can not should get help.

I see this is the underlying issue, it is a lack of willingness to personally adress other people's experiences, trying to stay aloof from the harm it causes, in preference of self based reasons.

This is why I offered in the OP it is a killer of humanity.

Our humanity is founded on our willingness to help all people, regardless of gender, race, religion or nationality.

So if we could make the easy decision not to partake of substances that cause harm to a significant part of the human race, why would we not make that decision apart from self based reasons?

True liberty is submission unto a code of laws based in virtue and morality.

Regards Tony

I do not believe that you have a really good grasp of what "human nature" really is. (There have been many great books on the topic, include David Hume's "On Human Nature," Jacob Needleman's "Why Can't We Be Good," Edward O. Wilson's "On Human Nature," and many, many more.)

In brief (and too brief to be really meaningful), we are a social species, utterly dependent on others of our kind for our very existence, but unlike other social species with less brain power that must sacrifice life itself for the good of the group, we are able to default, for personal and/or selfish reasons -- or sometimes even locally altruistic ones. At the same time, our social dependence on others is wired in, like light and gravity forces, to diminish in proportion to the square of the distance from our own center -- our tribe.

And wishful thinking is not going to change our very nature. Not being able to see that is at the very core of much of the damage that too many religions, philosophies and doctrines have caused.

Doctrines will not change our nature, therefore we must find a way for our nature to develop doctrines that can aid our survival in a world where the tribe is becoming less and less important, and our connectedness to everyone else more and more a reality.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm going to take one for the team, Tony.

I've decided I'm going to drink all the alcohol until it's gone. Then there will be nothing to abolish.

You're welcome.

 

[Windwalker]

It would be their choice, I see the OP said prohibition did not work, so what would it take?

Regards Tony

What would it take for prohibition to work? Answer is easy. Nothing. It can't work. It's not that it's not been tried before. You think if you force it harder it will work next time? The answer is it cannot work. Not what will it take to make it work.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Really? And when some drug addled person commits violence towards someone? Let me guess...just a matter for the police?

Abolition of Alcohol

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does it have to be one or the other?

Yes -- have you considered the possibility that all the friction from all that sex is what's really causing the ice caps to melt?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The way I see it, not everyone is ready to make their decisions "for the good of humanity". Often this is because they have needs that aren't getting met themselves. Most of us can't worry about the hungry guy two blocks over when we ourselves are starving. We can judge and tell a person not to be so small, but one will have more success if they simply try to address the problems of all without worrying that not everyone else is doing it, too.

Perhaps then, the goal should be to find ways to meet the needs of all?

That most likely is the solution to this OP. The way to start addressing the needs of all, is most easier achieved when we become reconciled as one human family, as nothing short of this will work?

Family help each other.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony, the fact of the matter is this: we humans can abuse absolutely anything. And I am sorry, but it is my belief that all presumed "God given Morals and Virtues" are -- in actual reality -- man-made.

Look, most of us, with just a little thought, can know what is right and wrong with respect to our relationships with others. And it is very true that nearly every religion and philosophy in human history has expressed some form of the "Golden Rule." (What we have much more trouble with is extending our versions of the GR beyond our immediate family, community or tribe, but that's just a matter of how you perceive the world, and your place in it.)

It is a fact that a moderate consumption of wine (and coffee, chocolate and most other comestibles) is healthy. And any of those things, consumed to excess or to the exclusion of each other, is unhealthy.

Humans have been making (and breaking) rules about all of those things -- and sex, and art, and exercise, and war and peace and everything else -- for as long as the species has existed.

The best hope for any of us to learn the truth: teach people what eating a little chocolate can do for you, and what eating a lot can do against you. Same for everything else. And then let people live as they see fit.

We needn't assume that living (i.e. not dying) until the very last possible moment based on your genetic makeup is the very best thing to do. It may well, in fact, be better to at least enjoy some of your life -- even if that means giving up a little of it in terms of days, weeks, months or years.

And that's long been part of the problem: too many "religious" tend to see enjoyment as being somehow inherently connected with sin. You know the old fundamentalist Christian saying: "Life is not meant to be enjoyed -- it's meant to be gotten on with!"? Well, I say that's rubbish. This is the life you get -- the only one. And if you don't enjoy it -- well that's your own fault.

Interestingly it is written in my Faith that God has provided all the good in this world and the next for us, and that we can partake of it all with only one stipulation. That we do not let those things become between us and God.

To me, that is m life and all the choices we can face.

It has been offered that the best this life can offer, is our service to others.

Regards Tony

 

[JustGeorge]

That we do not let those things become between us and God.

But wouldn't abstaining from alcohol come between one who worships Dionysus?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Agreed, but an effort must be made to start with and that is what this OP is about.

It is encouraging that a good percentage of people have offered what I too see is the solution and that is education.

I have said to another though, I wonder how far society would allow that education to go. The education would have to be aimed at imparting the thought that it should not be partaken of.

Regards Tony

Personally I don't think it should go that far. For the millions of people who can drink responsibly with no ill effects there's no reason that it should not be partaken of. Just like I don't think people should be educated to believe that peanuts should not be partaken of, just because they affect me in a negative manner.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So now we can consider what is required for change.

We have the science, we have a world of people that can get together and discuss these issues.

Regards Tony

Except banning doesn't work. Responsible use does.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I do not believe that you have a really good grasp of what "human nature" really is. (There have been many great books on the topic, include David Hume's "On Human Nature," Jacob Needleman's "Why Can't We Be Good," Edward O. Wilson's "On Human Nature," and many, many more.)

The other option is I have a different frame of reference on that topic, where I see we all have the potential to be good and that is this life.

By your comment and my comment we have explained a great spiritual truth.

You may not be aware of what Baha'u'llah offered on this topic.

It is said that the Human species has been created at the edge of darkness and the beginning of light, the darkness being our material nature and animal instincts. The light is the potential within us of virtues and morals that enable us to transcend our animal nature and only education can bring them out of us. Scientific studies on children abandoned to an animal nature remarkably support this view.

What this OP offers is that we can make choices that are inclusive of all humanity, after all many millions do make choices based on this aspect already.

Regards Tony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it does, when It has some fines. Similar to for example speed thickets. If there was no speed thicket, more people would drive faster, and we will have more accidents. But when they have to pay a fine, more people try to follow rules even if they don't believe in it.

Drugs can be similar to prescribed drugs. If a doctor prescribes Marijuana, one can have it.

The Autobahn suggests most people would be just fine without speed limits. And lots of people ignore them as it is anyways.
Banning drugs hasn't worked. Even in Singapore where they kill drug dealers they still have drugs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What would it take for prohibition to work? Answer is easy. Nothing. It can't work. It's not that it's not been tried before. You think if you force it harder it will work next time? The answer is it cannot work. Not what will it take to make it work.

That is not what I said, not sure how I can offer it any other way, you read what I wrote with your frame of reference.

Prohibition did not work, so what will work if we see the need to reduce alcohol consumption by a vast percentage?

Regards Tony