Should beer be illegal?

[Keanumoreira]

Well should it?

[Retribution]

If marijuana is illegal, alcohol should be punishable by death. Alcohol is easy to make, worse for you, works faster, intoxicates you more, and you can actually "overdose" on alcohol.

 

Obviously exaggerating with the death part, but I'm just comparing it to marijuana.

[roguim]

No, opposite what retribution said alcohol beverages aren't worst the marijuana. It's true that alcoholic drinks can cause damages if you drunk much of them and you can become addict , but it's proved by dozens of researches that there is a healthy effects in drink low quantity of alcoholics, specially Wine, mainly helps to control cholesterol, it's a good diuretic among other thing ( research in the scientific American magazine website and you'll find these researches.

[kidwitthafro]

we've seen the ramifications of what happened last time...

[Vindekarr]

no, it shouldnt be. banning something outright is one of the stupidest possible actions a government can make, as america china and germany know all too well. banning beer would be for one thing, political suicide, beer is a common drink amongst blue collar workers globaly, removing it would anger a good many of them, "real men" aswell would be furious, country yokels would probably rebel, and rednecks would likely reach for the shotgun. aside from the public rage prohibition would and has caused when banning any cultural aspect deemed dangerous by a ruling body, it simply pushes it underground, which often makes the problem a thousand times worse. take the reading material review for example, or prohibition. conservative fundamentalists in america decide that in order to preserve the civil liberty of their great land they must forcibly prevent the citizenry from having access to harmful materials such as pornography and alchahol. the results were simply two new forms of organised crime, porn brokerage and beer smuggling. prohibition doesnt work, it just doesnt. if you want to take away a cultrual aspect, even one that can be dangerous if misused, it has to be done slowly and carefully, regardless the political cost, for beer, you would probably want to start with increasing the penalties for duis and dadsthen maybe slightly increase liqour tax, over several years subtely alter the law to bias against drunkardsm this causes important "example" cases which frighten the populace, then, after a series of the sort of drunken crime that happens daily has seen the offender severely punished, you can finaly take the final steps and about a decade or two later finaly implement a broad spectrum legistlation to either outlaw beer sales, a large tax to make it a luxury item, or even a law prohibiting public drunkeness

[SpellAndShield]

no, it shouldnt be. banning something outright is one of the stupidest possible actions a government can make, as america china and germany know all too well. banning beer would be for one thing, political suicide, beer is a common drink amongst blue collar workers globaly, removing it would anger a good many of them, "real men" aswell would be furious, country yokels would probably rebel, and rednecks would likely reach for the shotgun. aside from the public rage prohibition would and has caused when banning any cultural aspect deemed dangerous by a ruling body, it simply pushes it underground, which often makes the problem a thousand times worse. take the reading material review for example, or prohibition. conservative fundamentalists in america decide that in order to preserve the civil liberty of their great land they must forcibly prevent the citizenry from having access to harmful materials such as pornography and alchahol. the results were simply two new forms of organised crime, porn brokerage and beer smuggling. prohibition doesnt work, it just doesnt. if you want to take away a cultrual aspect, even one that can be dangerous if misused, it has to be done slowly and carefully, regardless the political cost, for beer, you would probably want to start with increasing the penalties for duis and dadsthen maybe slightly increase liqour tax, over several years subtely alter the law to bias against drunkardsm this causes important "example" cases which frighten the populace, then, after a series of the sort of drunken crime that happens daily has seen the offender severely punished, you can finaly take the final steps and about a decade or two later finaly implement a broad spectrum legistlation to either outlaw beer sales, a large tax to make it a luxury item, or even a law prohibiting public drunkeness

 

Good post. Prohibition doesn't work...

[Keanumoreira]

no, it shouldnt be. banning something outright is one of the stupidest possible actions a government can make, as america china and germany know all too well. banning beer would be for one thing, political suicide, beer is a common drink amongst blue collar workers globaly, removing it would anger a good many of them, "real men" aswell would be furious, country yokels would probably rebel, and rednecks would likely reach for the shotgun. aside from the public rage prohibition would and has caused when banning any cultural aspect deemed dangerous by a ruling body, it simply pushes it underground, which often makes the problem a thousand times worse. take the reading material review for example, or prohibition. conservative fundamentalists in america decide that in order to preserve the civil liberty of their great land they must forcibly prevent the citizenry from having access to harmful materials such as pornography and alchahol. the results were simply two new forms of organised crime, porn brokerage and beer smuggling. prohibition doesnt work, it just doesnt. if you want to take away a cultrual aspect, even one that can be dangerous if misused, it has to be done slowly and carefully, regardless the political cost, for beer, you would probably want to start with increasing the penalties for duis and dadsthen maybe slightly increase liqour tax, over several years subtely alter the law to bias against drunkardsm this causes important "example" cases which frighten the populace, then, after a series of the sort of drunken crime that happens daily has seen the offender severely punished, you can finaly take the final steps and about a decade or two later finaly implement a broad spectrum legistlation to either outlaw beer sales, a large tax to make it a luxury item, or even a law prohibiting public drunkeness

 

Good post. Prohibition doesn't work...

 

That amendment failed so bad; the only reason why it was the only one removed was because of the Great Depression, but it should of ended way before that.

[antonkr]

How many times did the countries banned alcahol. All turned out to become a paradise for mafia smuggling it. Whats the point? Its going to fail misserably and people would still get beer.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Banning just one type of alcoholic drink, and the most popular one at that, is even sillier than banning alcohol altogether. As if Prohibition wasn't enough reason to believe it wouldn't work, we can clearly see today that banning any drug is an exercise in futility- we've been handily losing the War on Drugs for four decades and then some now, and we've got rampant gang violence and overcrowded prisons to show for it.

 

The existing laws regarding alcohol are hard enough to enforce, and most people agree with them. We record history so we can learn from past mistakes, not repeat them.

[Vagrant0]

The solution is not in making beer or alcohol illegal, but rather to make it so that all types of beer and most things containing alcohol taste rather badly... Unfortunately, this solution too has had entirely the opposite effect. A man would drink month old (fresh off the foot) gym-socks, pureed of course, if he was under the impression that it had the possibility of getting him totally shitfaced soon after, and might, after repeated consumption, be inclined to try the version of the drink simply for the flavor of it. Non-alcoholic beer is a good example of this dynamic. Edited June 3, 2010 by Vagrant0