Learned what? Explain why it will work better now than it did then.
Shhh. Attempted gun analogy.
“Alcohol-Related Deaths Kill More Than AIDS, TB Or Violence, WHO Reports”
So if a total ban on alcoholic drinks is not feasible maybe we should compromise and just ban drinks with a alcoholic content above 4%. That would be a good start at least, don’t you think?
Yeah, but AIDS doesn’t help me sing karaoke.
Your graph is almost 100 years old. Like I said, if we can’t ban all alcoholic drinks we should just limit the alcoholic content to less than 4%. Then people won’t be able to get drunk so fast. Surely you can’t be against that.
Drinking went up during Prohibition and people made their own booze at home. Ever hear the term “bathtub gin”? That’s where it came from.
That’s great, and people make meth at home, but that does not stop us from outlawing it. But I’m not taking about an outlawing alcohol right now, just regulating the alcohol content. People don’t need drinks like vodka and everclear to get a buzz.
Yes, I am against that. The vast majority of people in the US are against that. Your ideas are bad and you should stop having them.
Everything I drink is higher than 4% alcohol and I haven’t been hammered in years. You’re saying that anything that isn’t a horse piss macrobrew from AB-inBev should be banned. That’s pants on head retarded.
But alcohol is easier to make than meth, and people will do it. 4% is a low alcohol content even for beer. I don’t think that any wine comes that low without being watered down. If beer were limited to 4% legally, I’d whip myself up a batch of 8-9% beer this afternoon.
So you are happy with 75,000 deaths per year so you can have a stronger beer?
Hell, I’d kill that many myself for a good imperial stout.
Are you honestly invoking the “if guns are outlawed, I’ll become an outlaw” argument?
Are you an alcoholic?
But if you get it reallly helps you sing the blues as well as the more depressing country songs.
If you define an alcoholic as someone who likes beer at higher than 4% abv, and knows how to make it; sure, I’m an alky. If I wanted to get tight in a hurry, I’d add some weed to the hop bag! Since you seem to be making a list of my shortcomings, I also: drive too fast, masturbate, stay up too late at night, have played a bass solo, am partial to computer o/s religious wars, and often eat fried foods (no, not all at the same time).
I dunno if I’m extending it as an argument. Brewing beer, (ok, ok, ale in Texas), is what I already do. When making laws, you almost always create outlaws.
ETA: I’ve never brewed a beer that would be legal under your regime.
And even that is almost always above 4%. Guinness almost makes the cut at 4.2%, but still would have to be reduced. And wine? Who wants 4% wine?
Just to further the thought that 4% is a horrible cut off. Naturally fermented apple juice can produce a cider int he 5-8% range so that proposed law would make it illegal to let fresh pressed apple juice sit out.
OK, how about 6%. If it saves just one child isn’t it worth it?
But 75,000 people in america die due to alcohol per year. Doesn’t something have to be done?
No.
By the way, do you imagine people don’t get drunk on <6% beer? I don’t have stats, but I imagine that 75% of binge drinking in the US is done on beer that has a lower abv than 6%