Your reply:
REPLY: Just because alcohol has been around for a long time does not make it a necessity. The medical benefits of "a little wine here and there" are debatable, but the millions of deaths caused by drunk driving aren't.
I believe that alcohol gives the American people a competitive edge. For everything, there is a season, and there should be a season for relaxation to refile everything. A survey was done (and I don't have it, so don't ask) that showed that people who drink are more intelligent than those who don't. While drunk driving does kill, more would die if alcohol wasn't available to the masses. What separates us from the rest of the world is partially our ability to reason things through better than the rest of the world. As long as we can outsmart the enemy, we can be safe from the enemy. If no one drank there would be fewer drunk driving deaths but more deaths and murders due to stress and then there's the threat of losing our competitive edge with the result being foreign captivity which would kill millions like in WW2. I know you're not going to agree with me on this point but luckily we all have a vote and you're not king. That's the trouble with liberals, they see death by guns and so they say "get rid of guns" without seeing the resultant criminal and government rampage that would follow. Liberals see drunk driving deaths and say "get rid of beer" and they can't see the consequences of a stressed out population and a dumber society. Liberals have tunnel vision, they can't see anything but what directly in front of them.
If you raise the tax on alcohol and tobacco, you'll have fewer people purchasing beer and cigs, and by extension, you'll have fewer drunk driving deaths, lung cancer deaths, and emphysema deaths.
And more murder due to stress will outnumber the deaths you were trying to prevent in the first place not to mention the strokes and heart disease from a non-alcoholic diet.
It works to save lives. OTOH, raising taxes on non-luxury items like milk, bread, and what have you beyond the local sales tax is gratuitous and could cause the opposite effect.
Just as I thought, you liberals consider everthing but bread and milk luxury items. That gives you the moral initiative to steal from the poor like you've been doing for 70+ years.
If you're a responsible drinker and you want your beer, fine, then pay for it. Frankly, your inconvenience at having to pay an extra buck for a six pack is a lot less important to me than the lives the tax will save.
But it's thievery. It's liberal thievery from the poor. Liberals say that they are for the poor but they're not, the poor are slaves to the liberals dues to their extremely high "sin" taxes. I don't want some liberal telling me what is a sin and what is not when they allow their president to rape, murder, and sexually harass women and kill children (abortion) just so they don't have to go through the trouble of raising them or even give them up for adoption.
It doesn't matter to me...I was just trying to "get a room" for this discussion at Mud's request. Oh well, as long as we keep it to one topic at a time it shouldn't get too bad.
I believe that alcohol gives the American people a competitive edge. For everything, there is a season, and there should be a season for relaxation to refile everything.
If your argument is that alcohol makes people less stressful, you should keep in mind that there are other ways for people to relax. You can work out, you can watch TV, you can go to a NASCAR race, you can make love with your spouse, you can call a friend, you can take a nap. Trust me, there is no shortage of pleasant diversions we can undertake. Alcohol is not the be-all and end-all of relaxation, so raising the tax on alcohol does not mean you're going to be more stressful. Besides, if alcohol were the only outlet you had for relaxing, then it's a good bet you're an alcoholic, and you probably have more serious problems than paying a little extra tax for your Budweiser.
A survey was done (and I don't have it, so don't ask) that showed that people who drink are more intelligent than those who don't.
Sorry, but I would have to see that survey to accept that premise. If, like you've said, poor people are more prone to drink, and poor people are generally not as well educated as middle-class and upper-class people, it doesn't add up.
While drunk driving does kill, more would die if alcohol wasn't available to the masses.
This is another specious claim that needs evidence to back it up. Were there any studies done that support this theory?
What separates us from the rest of the world is partially our ability to reason things through better than the rest of the world. As long as we can outsmart the enemy, we can be safe from the enemy.
Are you trying to say that alcohol gives us an edge in intelligence? Didn't you know that alcohol kills brain cells?
If no one drank there would be fewer drunk driving deaths but more deaths and murders due to stress and then there's the threat of losing our competitive edge with the result being foreign captivity which would kill millions like in WW2.
Whoa there, cowboy...never mind the fact that you don't need alcohol to de-stress, as I stated earlier; now you're saying that if our soldiers are a little bit on edge, they'll get captured and/or killed by the millions? If you're on the battlefield, you're going to be stressed anyway at the prospect of the enemy blowing your brains out! That's a little higher on a soldier's priority list than worrying about not getting a beer last night.
I know you're not going to agree with me on this point but luckily we all have a vote and you're not king.
Nope, my vote cancels out yours.
That's the trouble with liberals, they see death by guns and so they say "get rid of guns" without seeing the resultant criminal and government rampage that would follow. Liberals see drunk driving deaths and say "get rid of beer" and they can't see the consequences of a stressed out population and a dumber society.
I'm not going to get into a debate on gun control, but I'm not saying "get rid of beer". I'm saying put a luxury tax on beer -- big difference. We tried prohibition before and had to repeal it.
And more murder due to stress will outnumber the deaths you were trying to prevent in the first place not to mention the strokes and heart disease from a non-alcoholic diet.
The studies have indicated that alcohol may decrease your risk of a stroke. Not drinking alcohol does not raise your chances for a stroke, as you seem to indicate.
Just as I thought, you liberals consider everthing but bread and milk luxury items. That gives you the moral initiative to steal from the poor like you've been doing for 70+ years.
No, I was giving just a couple of examples of staples. Don't put words into my mouth.
But it's thievery. It's liberal thievery from the poor. Liberals say that they are for the poor but they're not, the poor are slaves to the liberals dues to their extremely high "sin" taxes.
Actually, if you want to talk about thievery from the poor, we can talk about how Republicans have cut taxes across the board for the rich but virtually ignored the poor. A poor person who doesn't drink is no "slave" to any luxury tax, but a poor person who has to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes is.