Banning consumption itemsFollow

In other tangentially related news, Colbert did a bit about Four Loko and other caffinated alcoholic drinks last night, and even took a few swigs of the stuff on camera.

He described it as akin to "drinking the contents of a Duracell battery." I thought he was being too kind.

Why not have them just slap a label on it saying it is potentially harmful, like cigarettes do?

Where's an over-payed lobbyist when you need one?

My point is that we don't ban things just because they are bad for you.

And oddly enough, they have half the calories of a Big Mac!

He meant a BIG MAC.

Wait a second. We've already got this. Is it working? Last number I heard was 1/4 drivers are handicapped in the way of either drugs or alcohol. I can't link source, boss's friends (who are cops) gave it to him. The depressing part about drunk drivers, is more often then not the drunk will survive and the people in the other car won't.



But consuming substances in the privacy of your own home or on your own time doesn't always just affect you. As nice as that would be, it doesn't. Alcoholics, do they affect their family? Friends? Drug addicts/the drug trade. This is by design private because they are illegal. Yet they're still pervasive and debilitating to anyone involved. You might say that it's because these people are taking it too far, but is it possible to not take crystal meth too far? Alcohol, stupid people doing stupid things happen because of it. I don't care for the bans on food.

The idea of as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights is fine by me, and it follows John Locke's ideas. Only he was a bit of a joke in this regard, because he could never pinpoint that fine line. Only way to follow it would be to ban doing just about everything.

Edited, Nov 18th 2010 8:49pm by manicshock

The other main statistic was 1/8 people simply aren't fit to drive. Do you believe that?

I feel as though you could use a course in fractions.

Yes, but 1/2 is greater than 1/8.

I got it. Doesn't change the fact that it was fail.

So, what's your point? We should ban alcohol? If so, f'uck you, you're an idiot. If not, shut up, grown folks is talkin.


The amount of stupidity in this paragraph could choke a small elephant. Abuse of a substance leads to destructive behavior and the consequence of that destructive behavior (violence, etc.) can and should be criminalized because it then becomes an infringement on the rights of others. That doesn't even begin to address the idea that the criminalization of consensual acts, in which the participants are all adults free to make the choice, is ridiculous. Your comments about the drug trade's illegality go so far as to argue the opposite using the problem as the evidence. Maybe you should step back from the keys and kill yourself. It would save the rest of us from your need for a controlling government to keep you safe.


The fine line isn't fine at all. It is very clear and easy to spot. If you're violating someone else's rights, you're wrong. If not, the government has no place telling you you can't engage in an action.

/yawn.