"The Funnel"

Originally posted by FMF
I would make the "nuisance" punishable, if necessary, not the drinking of alcohol.

Sometimes its simply easier not to sell alcohol. That is what most countries have decided with regards to drugs. Rather than punishing people who misuse them, they ban the use and sale of them outright. Now one may argue which drugs should be banned and which shouldn't, and one may argue that the current system doesn't work very well, but clearly a lot of people agree that an outright ban is sometimes the best way to do it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sometimes its simply easier not to sell alcohol. That is what most countries have decided with regards to drugs. Rather than punishing people who misuse them, they ban the use and sale of them outright.

You're just telling me that bears poo in the woods here.

Originally posted by FMF
No. Drink driving is behaviour that poses a threat of doing actual harm to others no matter how good a driver the drinker thinks he or she is. I don't think I have contradicted myself at all.

So if 1% of people could safely drive while drunk, you would remove the blanket law and only punish those that do cause accidents?

Originally posted by FMF
You're just telling me that bears poo in the woods here.

I am afraid I don't understand the reference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now one may argue which drugs should be banned and which shouldn't, and one may argue that the current system doesn't work very well, but clearly a lot of people agree that an outright ban is sometimes the best way to do it.

They threw an atheist in gaol here a few months back in order to protect 'public morals'. There are plenty of people here that agree that an outright ban on public admissions of atheism is the best way to protect society from it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So if 1% of people could safely drive while drunk, you would remove the blanket law and only punish those that do cause accidents?

No, I'd just make driving under the influence illegal.

Originally posted by FMF
No, I'd just make driving under the influence illegal.

So you admit that blanket rules can make sense in some instances even when there are people who when violating the rule would do no harm.
So what if the figure was 20%? 90%?

Originally posted by FMF
They threw an atheist in gaol here a few months back in order to protect 'public morals'. There are plenty of people here that agree that an outright ban on public admissions of atheism is the best way to protect society from it.

And your point is? You would prefer a system where atheists are only punished when caught practising their atheism?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you admit that blanket rules can make sense in some instances even when there are people who when violating the rule would do no harm.
So what if the figure was 20%? 90%?

I think calling them both "blanket rules" may be an interesting thought game. So, thanks. But I am not impressed by it. An across the board ban on alcohol is not targetted at all and seems to me to have no practical 'moral' underpinning. A ban on drinking under the influence of alcohol/drugs targets behaviour that puts innocent bystanders' or family /friends' lives at risk of harm, or death, and therefore has a clear 'moral' underpinning. To the extent that your "blanket rules" characterization obscures this difference, I don't see how it is useful in unpicking whodey's broad brush moralizing about drugs and about the kinds of sex that are 'morally' unacceptable to him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You would prefer a system where atheists are only punished when caught practising their atheism?

No. I would prefer a system where atheists are only punished when caught committing crimes.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, what if no one gets hurt or no crime has occurred and the user does not allow it to lead to anything immoral? That is my question. If you do not personally have the "wisdom" to use drugs and your behaviour vis a vis drugs "falls short", why should this be the basis for a code of conduct that you think ought to be superimposed on others?

So the discussion has moved from what is a "sinful" to what should be illegal?

Ok, I had not made the leap as of yet. That discussion is a different one in my view, especially in a secular government.

At this point laws often turn into weapons to enslave people rather than to uphold what is "right". As a result, I favor laws that make people as free as possible unless they are directly harming others.

Originally posted by FMF
An across the board ban on alcohol is not targetted at all and seems to me to have no practical 'moral' underpinning. A ban on drinking under the influence of alcohol/drugs targets behaviour that puts innocent bystanders' or family /friends' lives at risk of harm, or death, and therefore has a clear 'moral' underpinning. To the extent that your "blanket rules" c ...[text shortened]... izing about drugs and about the kinds of sex that are 'morally' unacceptable to him.

I think it is all a question of how we evaluate risk. You feel that driving under the influence is risky behaviour even though only a small percentage of those who drink drive cause accidents. Yet you apparently do not apply this to other drunken behaviour (which also has a small percentage of drunks causing accidents or 'trouble'.
You also are OK will stopping all driving under the influence because of its potential dangers, but are not willing to stop drinking in general despite the fact that it too has potential dangers (drink driving being one of them). So I presume that the difference in your eyes must be one of degree ie you feel drink driving is so dangerous that it should be stopped outright whereas drinking in general is not dangerous enough to warrant a ban.
But I think your error is in thinking that your judgement is 'obvious'. What if whodey judges drinking in general to be too risky? I believe that is the standpoint of Islaam ie its too risky so don't do it. They go even further and discourage Muslims from selling alcohol or even from supporting businesses that sell alcohol.

Originally posted by FMF
No. I would prefer a system where atheists are only punished when caught committing crimes.

But being atheist is a crime. I think your real issue is that you disagree with the claim that being atheist is wrong. But this is totally separate from how you go about stopping atheism once you have determined it is wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think it is all a question of how we evaluate risk. You feel that driving under the influence is risky behaviour even though only a small percentage of those who drink drive cause accidents. Yet you apparently do not apply this to other drunken behaviour (which also has a small percentage of drunks causing accidents or 'trouble'.

Well, as for "other drunken behaviour", I would apply the do-no-harm principle to breaches of the peace, vandalism, assault, reckless endangerment, etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But being atheist is a crime.

So is drinking alcohol in countries where drinking alcohol is deemed a crime. It doesn't mean, in either case, that the prohibition has a 'moral' underpinning to my way of thinking.