Abolition of Alcohol

[TransmutingSoul]

The cause may be ungodliness, but it's not the ungodliness of the abuser, but the ungoldlines of the system and those who create it, which creates the environment that causes its people to become ill. You are blaming the victims here.

I am no blaming any person. The OP is not to lay blame, but to initiate the conversation that will have to eventually be brought to the forefront of change.

To initiate change there is a whole range of stakeholders that will need to have a say.

Regards Tony

 

[QuestioningMind]

I see that people will make their own choices, but I do see a time when those millions of people that feel that are capable and responsible to consume alcoholic beverages, will out of Love and compassion for those that can not, freely give up the unnecessary practice.

Regards Tony

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to give up something they enjoy that they can indulge in responsibly simply because I'M incapable of indulging in it responsibly. I'm the one with a problem concerning that something and it would be terribly selfish of me to try and make it everyone else's problem as well.

 

[DNB]

This to me is an important topic and will eventually be a topic discussed around the world because of the dire consequences this drug of choice inflicts upon the individual, the family, the community, the Nation and on to the entire body of humanity.

I unfortunately live in a Nation that pride themselves on getting drunk, and that mentality is expanding as the world is locked down.

I long for the day when the business of Alcohol is seen for what it has become, a killer of humanity.

So this OP shows my stance, that alcoholic beverages are not needed they are a drug of choice and all recreational drugs need to be Abolished. America tried, so what will it take?

What is your stance, what is your view?

Edit I added this so the intent of this OP is known, as my wording might not have shown that is the case.

"So this OP is all about choice and this OP is to explore why we would choose to abstain, if there was no law, or if we may again consider that a law is needed."

Regards Tony

Although I don't believe that alcohol will ever be abolished, I am totally aligned with you that both drugs and alcoholic beverages should be eradicated from society all together.
For, whatever one is trying to achieve by consuming these intoxicants, they can, both more productively and less consequently, achieve the same objective doing something more wholesome.
There is nothing that partaking or indulging in these substances have ever done to better one's character or position in life, or improve society - they have been the bane of many civilizations throughout history.

Again, prohibition will never happen, but it should - we don't need more drunks and druggies walking around in society.

 

[JustGeorge]

we don't need more drunks and druggies walking around in society.

I'd take a kind hearted drunk or druggie over a jerkish sober person any day.

I think we have bigger fish to fry, really. Again, if we work to take away the roots of alcohol(or drug) abuse, we'll probably be able to lower usage than just a restriction.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to give up something they enjoy that they can indulge in responsibly simply because I'M incapable of indulging in it responsibly. I'm the one with a problem concerning that something and it would be terribly selfish of me to try and make it everyone else's problem as well.

I wonder how many people thought they were responsible users until one day they found out that had passed that point!

No person knows how they will react to the use of alcohol and what a safe level will be for them. No one knows what they will do one life throws a few curve balls at them.

That is worth considering.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'd take a kind hearted drunk or druggie over a jerkish sober person any day.

I think we have bigger fish to fry, really. Again, if we work to take away the roots of alcohol(or drug) abuse, we'll probably be able to lower usage than just a restriction.

It is indeed our heart, or virtues and morals that define us as a person.

That is why we are to look for the good in all people. It is the actions carried out by people under the influence that is the issue.

Regards Tony

 

[SalixIncendium]

What is your stance, what is your view?

My stance is that no one should tell another what is best for them. Unless you've had another's experiences in life, I don't see how you or anyone else can speak intelligently on this topic.

 

[danieldemol]

Are there any Baha'is on the forum that don't feel this way?

You might find new Baha'i who dont feel this way, but my anecdotal experience with the overwhelming majority of deepend Baha'i is that they do feel this way.

This would be because Baha'u'llah appears to have envisioned Baha'i law becoming the law of the land once the majority of people became Baha'i (which is what He imagined would happen).

The whole theology seems to be about the government resting on the shoulders of the prince of peace (allegedly Baha'u'llah) and the divine law being the foundation of prosperous civilisation (evidence to the contrary be dammed).

Those who say that Baha'is will not enact Baha'i laws once Baha'i reach the majority and that we should not blindly imitate Baha'u'llah are just using Baha'i marketing techniques which amount to dishonesty in my opinion.

To which I say shame on the OP.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with adopting personal honour codes whereby those who adopt the code choose personally to refrain from drinking, to go further than that and propose that such codes be adopted into the law of the land is to ignore the vast wealth of human experience produced by prior sincere attempts at abolition and the terror unleashed upon entire societies due to the war on drugs.

In my opinion.

 

[JustGeorge]

It is indeed our heart, or virtues and morals that define us as a person.

That is why we are to look for the good in all people. It is the actions carried out by people under the influence that is the issue.

Regards Tony

Usually, if a person is problematic under the influence, they're problematic when they're not under the influence as well. Booze may heighten it, but the seed for aggression/cruelty/anger was there before. I've shared company with some very pleasant drunks(as well as some violent ones). The alcohol itself isn't to blame.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My stance is that no one should tell another what is best for them. Unless you've had another's experiences in life, I don't see how you or anyone else can speak intelligently on this topic.

There are a lot of things one does not have to have experienced, nor faced in life so they can have an intelligent decisionbased on the best available information.

I have not faced or experienced the dropping of an atomic bomb, but can still make an informed and sound conclusion as to the benefit of abolishing the Atomic bomb as a way to peace.

Regards Tony

 

[DNB]

I'd take a kind hearted drunk or druggie over a jerkish sober person any day.

I think we have bigger fish to fry, really. Again, if we work to take away the roots of alcohol(or drug) abuse, we'll probably be able to lower usage than just a restriction.

It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, just abolish* it and be done away with concerning oneself with either the direct or collateral damage.
There are much bigger fish to fry: sickness, poverty, abuse, hate, injuries, unwanted pregnancies, ... Why add to the mix something that invariably will exacerbate these already inevitable issues.


*never happen

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What is your stance, what is your view?

I don't think the government has the right to prohibit its citizens from ingesting any substance they please. It's between you and your doctor.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Usually, if a person is problematic under the influence, they're problematic when they're not under the influence as well. Booze may heighten it, but the seed for aggression/cruelty/anger was there before. I've shared company with some very pleasant drunks(as well as some violent ones). The alcohol itself isn't to blame.

Oh dear, so if booze makes it worse, that is OK, as they had that tenancy anyway, have you really thought about that comment?

Also that is focusing on just one issue, what about the lives lost by the use of alcohol in vehicle statistics, what about accident statistics from workplaces?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't think the government has the right to prohibit its citizens from ingesting any substance they please. It's between you and your doctor.

Well that is democracy and if the majority did want it, it could very well be tabled.

Personally I see people need to be given the opportunity to access all information available on the topic, to make the right choices.

It is bigger than self liberty.

Regards Tony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am no blaming any person. The OP is not to lay blame, but to initiate the conversation that will have to eventually be brought to the forefront of change.

During alcohol prohibition people could go to the store and buy packets of ingredients to make their own beer at home.
It also saw the unfortunate side effect of making many women drinkers.
How Prohibition Encouraged Women to Drink | JSTOR Daily

When alcohol became illegal in 1920, the result was anything but sober. Thirsty people openly flouted the law in a drunken, thirteen-year-long binge—including many women. During Prohibition, American women “made, sold, and drank liquor in unprecedented fashion,” writes historian Mary Murphy.
...
Prohibition changed everything. Private restaurant-nightclubs sprang up when saloons closed, and these establishments welcomed women. People found old recipes for wine and liquor in their grandmothers’ cookbooks and got to producing alcohol. Women also started running their own speakeasies: “home speaks,” in which they served homemade liquor and perhaps provided a phonograph for some dancing. Working- and middle-class women began making their own wine and even operating stills.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is the actions carried out by people under the influence that is the issue.

I play my guitar, post here, read, watch music videos, and become very chatty.
What is the issue with those?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why deprive women from a few drinks? They had been doing this all around the world before prohibition in USA.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well that is democracy and if the majority did want it, it could very well be tabled.

Personally I see people need to be given the opportunity to access all information available on the topic, to make the right choices.

It is bigger than self liberty.

Regards Tony

In the US, we have access to all the info we need about it on the Internet.

The only time it's "bigger than self liberty" is when it's endangers the safety and lives of others. Like drunk drivers, parents who are drunks or addicts and neglecting their children over it or otherwise mistreating them, and so on. But then you put them into diversion programs and court order them into treatment and monitoring.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

During alcohol prohibition people could go to the store and buy packets of ingredients to make their own beer at home.
It also saw the unfortunate side effect of making many women drinkers.
How Prohibition Encouraged Women to Drink | JSTOR Daily

It appears that many people made some bad choices.

To me you are only supporting the need for people to see that alcohol and its consumption are toxic for the welfare of the whole. Profit is the motivation for bootleggers.

Regards Tony

 

[JustGeorge]

It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, just abolish* it and be done away with concerning oneself with the direct or collateral damage.
There are much bigger fish to fry: sickness, poverty, abuse, hate, injuries, unwanted pregnancies, ... Why add to the mix something that invariably will exacerbate these already inevitable issues.


*never happen

You're right, it won't happen, so the whole conversation is besides the point.

But, if we're going to pick on booze, why not soda and fast food/junk food, too? That stuff's all awful for you. I can't help but think we're picking on alcohol because of its 'taboo' factor.

Who gets to make the call what we put into our bodies?

I agree the examples you've given are much bigger fish to fry. Restricting an old person from having their nightly glass of red wine or a group of friends from celebrating a birthday together at a local pub just seems a little authoritarian.

Oh dear, so if booze makes it worse, that is OK, as they had that tenancy anyway, have you really thought about that comment?

Also that is focusing on just one issue, what about the lives lost by the use of alcohol in vehicle statistics, what about accident statistics from workplaces?

Regards Tony

I think you may misunderstand me here(its possible I choose poor wording as well). What I'm saying is rather than worry specifically that someone exhibiting negative traits is drinking, why not try to alleviate the cause? This may not work in cases where someone becomes physically destructive, but those are not common. For most cases, it helps to try to help the person solve the issue(they're depressed/scared/having unmet needs/etc) rather than rip the glass out of their hands.

The loss of life due to drunk driving disgusts me. On that note, I think we oughta up the consequences for those caught drunk driving. There is really no excuse for such behavior. Call an Uber. Bring a DD. Walk. There is never an excuse to drive drunk.