Posted on 01/14/2020 6:57:27 PM PST by nickcarraway
Occasionally, Elizabeth Bruenig unleashes a tweet for which she knows she’s sure to get dragged: She admits that she doesn’t drink.
Bruenig, a columnist at The New York Times with a sizable social-media following, told me that it usually begins with her tweeting something mildly inflammatory and totally unrelated to alcohol—e.g., The Star Wars prequels are actually good. Someone will accuse her of being drunk. She, in turn, will clarify that she doesn’t drink, and that she’s never been drunk. Inevitably, people will criticize her. You’re really missing out, they might say. Why would you deny yourself?
As Bruenig sees it, however, there’s more to be gained than lost in abstaining. In fact, she supports stronger restrictions on alcohol sales. Alcohol’s effects on crime and violence, in her view, are cause to reconsider some cities’ and states’ permissive attitudes toward things such as open-container laws and where alcohol can be sold.
Breunig’s outlook harks back to a time when there was a robust public discussion about the role of alcohol in society. Today, warnings about the devil drink will win you few friends. Sure, it’s fine if you want to join Alcoholics Anonymous or cut back on drinking to help yourself, and people are happy to tell you not to drink and drive. But Americans tend to reject general anti-alcohol advocacy with a vociferousness typically reserved for IRS auditors and after-period double-spacers. Pushing for, say, higher alcohol taxes gets you treated like an uptight school marm. Or worse, a neo-prohibitionist.
Unlike in previous generations, hardly any formal organizations are pushing to reduce the amount that Americans drink. Some groups oppose marijuana (by many measures a much safer drug than alcohol), guns, porn, junk food, and virtually every other vice. Still, the main U.S. organizations
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
I know. One of the biggest marijuana prohibitionist entities in America are the DuPonts.
No irony there - black market goods are beyond the reach of effective control.
What ought we conclude from that?
Having a drink does not indicate intent to "mind alter"; toking up does.
Noah’s Mill bourbon is excellent. IW Harper 15 is very good as well. Exceedingly smooth.
Having a drink is often but not always done with intent to "mind alter"; toking up (I'll stipulate) always is.
What ought we conclude from that?
That any accident or misbehavior resulting from the other-than-medical use of marijuana (or any drug) should not be treated as unintentional.
Beyond that, you may draw your own conclusions.
What ought we conclude from that?
That any accident or misbehavior resulting from the other-than-medical use of marijuana (or any drug) should not be treated as unintentional.
Surely that applies to alcohol as well. Unless it's your understanding that people often get mind-altered from alcohol without having so intended.
Saw a report this past week: Millennial love booze. It’s one of their biggest expenses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.