Smoking and Drugs

[Zerg_eater]

Why do people do drugs? Why do people smoke? I dont understand why people keep doing them. They know its bad, but still do it. Why dont people just close up Cigarrete factories? Sometimes I wonder why people drink or smoke. What do you think?

[Toucan]

Excellent thread ZE, seriously, its a good subject for a debate.

I smoked for years, at the time when I started it was pretty much a fashionable thing, basically everyone that was cool and that I wanted to hang out with smoked, did drugs, drank. Pretty stupid in retrospect but at the time being liked and popular was the most important thing in the world to me, pretty stupid really.

I wanted to quit for years before I did, its very hard, the withdrawal from it makes you get angry very easily, it was always easier just to have another cigarette.

[IrishDutchman]

Why do people do drugs? Why do people smoke? I dont understand why people keep doing them. They know its bad, but still do it. Why dont people just close up Cigarrete factories? Sometimes I wonder why people drink or smoke. What do you think?

Well, people do drugs for the high they get from it. You feel happy or energetic. It makes you feel good.
Why people smoke is more of a mystery to me. It doesn't deliver the same feeling as hard drugs. I believe it's usually fashion statement, and most people start because of peer pressure. (this is sometimes also the reason people start doing drugs) Once they've started, they'll get hooked. After that they smoke because they feel bad without a cigarette.

[CrazyTom]

Stress is a key factor. I'm told cigarettes do have a relaxing effect, up until you need another one. Then the cycle starts feeding itself.

Another reason I'm told is that cigarettes reduce your craving for food, so you can actually lose weight if you smoke a large amount. Ironic, considering even though your weight is lower, the risk of heart disease will be higher.

With smoking, ignorance cannot be claimed. With drugs... I'm not sure, it's not quite as blasted at you as the anti-smoking messages are. But most drug users start out seeking a high. Then drug dealers push them to take harder substances, in the hope of getting them addicted.

As for why they don't ban cigarettes, I'd imagine that is down to the tax and the money the government can make from them. And also the cigarette-making companies might object to it, along with smokers all over the country.

[GenocideAlive]

Two things contribute in my opinion, the relaxation and others' perception of relaxation. A lot of "cool" is defined with self-contentedness, and people that are actively participating in these drugs are very confident to onlookers. Thus, in an attempt to mimic that confidence, others imbibe in order to gain that same "cool" likeness. Unfortunately, when you begin partaking of these things in order to be cool or physiologically force your body to relax, you also begin your body's acclimation.

Any time you jam a foreign substance into your body, your body begins fighting its presence. After time, your body becomes acclimiated to fighting the substance and it takes a lot more of it to overwhelm your body's preparation. In drug terms, this is called "tolerance". So the drinking newbie can handle about 2 beers before getting woozy and the hardcore everyday drinker can chug a fifth before they start getting a strong reaction. The hardcore drinker's body has a constant supply of enzyme that breaks down alcohol.

This comes into play when the hardcore drinker tries to stop drinking. When he stops, the body is still making the enzymes in anticipation of more drink coming. But it doesn't, and the drinker has a general feeling of unease, because his body is physiologically anticipating something. It takes a while for the body to eventually stop making this substance.

There's also the social aspect of it, in that some people are socially afraid or maladapted, but find their courage with their inhibitions lowered in the presence of alcohol. Additionally, there are many situations in which people are pressured to drink by virtue of the fact that everyone around them is drinking. It can be really difficult for people to avoid drink when they want to, if it's being used at every event that their friends are attending. So if they want to stop drinking, they're probably going to have to get new friends. Not an easy thing to do, especially on top of the pressure to start drinking again.

Cigarettes applies in much the same way, though I wouldn't doubt that they're going to be illegal in a few years. The government is really cracking down on them to ridiculous extremes.

[Prozerran]

GA covers the majority of it. I've been off and on as a smoker (currently more "on" than I care to admit), and it's just a vicious cyclical experience trying to quit, then returning in a few days, a week, even a month later to the same, if not, higher levels of consumption than before you attempted to quit. It's all addiction to me.

Drugs give you a high. Alcohol gives you a buzz. Cigarettes calm you down. The mentality is not difficult to understand. Why is not really a question that is difficult to answer? It's the addiction to it and the failure to take all of these things in moderation.

Cigarette smoking, for instance, is not terribly harmful. What IS harmful is its addictive quality. Smoking less than 10 cigarettes in a week really doesn't harm you physically, because your body is able to filter the after product (the small amount of tar that tends to form in the lungs of heavy smokers) readily out of your system. One thing I found that made quitting even easier was that exercise had a drastic impact on cravings. If you actually have the time, going on a few short walks periodically throughout the first week you quit smoking helps neutralize the craving while also helping to filter out excess product from your respiratory system. The nicotine effect in your system generally lasts for 32 hours, but with exercise, you reduce that time period considerably.

With most Drugs, it's a little different, because the chemical and psychological dependence tend to become much more problematic. Marijuana, for instance, is a downer, so it tends to mellow you out. Dependence on this substance is almost wholly psychological and not chemical, because your body isn't reacting with any anticipatory effect. When you take in the smoke from Marijuana, your body tends to produce chemicals in your blood stream to complement what you're taking in rather than remove it. This is the effect you feel as well.

Now let's take cocaine, which is almost entirely a chemical response. Cocaine is BAD, and if you've never seen someone high on this substance, when you do you'll never want to do it. There are several telling signs of someone who is snorting this substance. Nose bleeds, mood swings associated with a falling off period, extreme shifts between high energy and low energy, shaking and nervousness, mental lapse, and impaired speech. This is also one of the first drugs you'll be introduced to in the long list of chemically altering substances. What you have to know is that when this substance hits your blood stream, one of the first reactions your body makes is to release adreneline, one of the key substances of your immune system. As the substance continues to circulate, and as you take in more and more, your body continues making it, over and over again, in cycle after cycle. The problem is that your blood stream is not actively fighting off infection of any kind, so all of this energy being generated is not being directed anywhere. So, as your body is chemically confused, your brain is having its own panic attack, in essence trying to identify and appropriately respond to the chemical conundrum taking place. By the time Cocaine leaves your system after about 18 - 24 hours later, your body finally gives up, and you CRASH. Your body has spent every effort to fight off something, and you have no energy. The problem then presents itself when you're off to work, or school, or whatever daily activity you need to perform, because now your body cannot effectively help you. The best thing you can do is take a day off, rest, and NEVER do it again. The addiction develops with consumption, and as the need for more energy to make it through the day presents itself, the more you have to consume in order to simply function.

Moderation is really the key. If someone feels the need to try it, be sure it's in a controlled environment where you won't fall into the trap of addiction. Some of the substances are great. Others are pretty harmful. If you're going to try any of it, be sure you're in a place where you can get out from under the blanket it tends to create.

[Zerg_eater]

Stress is a key factor. I'm told cigarettes do have a relaxing effect, up until you need another one. Then the cycle starts feeding itself.

.Well actually...I heard that it gives more stress than before. Smoking has a lot of crap that could kill you. I know most smokers are hobos and possibly drop outs.

and, I actually kind of learned somethings while the posts

[GenocideAlive]

Seriously, zerg_eater, you need to clean up your posts. Most of your posts in the IR are hardly worthy of IR readers. Two or three lines of "oh that's interesting" or "I like this" need to stop being posted. Get an idea, clarify it, and outline it. I won't bother repeating myself, I'll simply have you removed from the IR.

[CrazyTom]

I know most smokers are hobos and possibly drop outs.

What the hell are you talking about? That's a pretty daft notion. Most smokers I know are lower / working class folk, but I know plenty of middle-class smokers and even people who I'd consider to be upper-class who smoke. It's hardly a restrictive demographic. (Is demographic the right word?)

I already covered the first part of your post, or was 'the cycle starts feeding itself' not clear? Basically, you smoke and it calms you down to a certain extent. Then a little later the cravings start, which makes you more stressed than before.

[UMSLdragon]

My suggestion to quitting an addiction would to get a friend who can keep you accountable. You would have to give them permission to "beat on you" where no one else could just to keep you under control. That's probably the best thing you can do to quit; it's to have someone who cares, help. Someone who cares and the individual trusts. It's like backing up your files on a computer (well, not really) or putting money in some sort of investment... (that doesn't really work either). Basically, having someone who can keep you on task of quitting whatever it is you don't want to do would be basically covering your ass (ya, that's a good way to 'splain it). An ass coverer...

That could potentionally be why people don't want to quit - other than losing status - is because they can't (or don't) want to admit it. I think having someone to keep one accountable is the best way to quit an addictive substance. Am-i-rite?

[SolidSamurai]

Smoking and drugs are commonly considered the greatest form of escape from reality. Smoking simply relaxes you (and it's addictive, obviously), and powerful drugs are rather direct in their effects. Even though the symptoms really only alter your vision, dull your mind or whatever they might do. Some make you insane too, so I'd avoid preferrably avoid it. It aint cool.

Of course, other people do drugs too because of peer pressure, but in reality, peer pressure occurs in everything in life. Anything that's fun or fueling can result in peer pressure really.

[KillerKow]

People do drugs even though they have negative effects on their health because they don't value their health. For most people, endangering one's life for a little high simply isn't worth it. But if you don't care about your health, the pros heavily outweigh the cons.

Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but from personal experiences I can say that this is generally accurate.

[UMSLdragon]

People do drugs even though they have negative effects on their health because they don't value their health. For most people, endangering one's life for a little high simply isn't worth it. But if you don't care about your health, the pros heavily outweigh the cons.

Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but from personal experiences I can say that this is generally accurate.
So then, those people that don't care about their health could be considered in a sort of depression?

Wow, there are so many gray areas around drugs and reasons why people would that it differs from one to another!

[kirby]

here's my opinion, frank and simple. People choose to be dumbasses, and they'll die for it in the end. Ignorance to known health hazards tends to do that.

[EvilEggCracker]

"Ignorance is strength"

Almost every single drug user knows the risks and every single smoker knows the risks. To argue otherwise would be idiotic.

That said many don't care for the risks - the future seems so far away and people have a tendency to say things like "That'll never happen to me".

I'm interested though - would drugs and smoking fit into a hedonistic view? While Drugs and Smoking do give pleasure - it's only short-term and can give pain in the long-term.

[kirby]

evileggcracker, I've never thought about it that way, but it would make sense. Why else are they killing themselves are in the slowest way currently known. Do the pictures of black lungs even concern them a little?

[EvilEggCracker]

The mind is amazing at blocking things like that whilst smoking/doing drugs. People never think that they would be the one with those black lungs.

[UMSLdragon]

They might be thinking that because it won't happen for a long time, they have a long time before they start to worry about it.

I guess if people (not all mind) could view life, not only in the moments, but in the entire scope of it all, then maybe some choices might not be made. Just because they would see that it won't benefit them in any fashion... that was well regurgitated... Nope, can't figure out why people would do drugs even if it was just for pleasure.

[Anoiktos]

Tobacco? Alcohol? As those who know me will tell you, I do not use, nor have I ever used, drugs, but I find the way you describe their use as unthinkable is rather ... strange.

Do you find the use of caffeine equally unthinkable? When you drink a soda - say, a coke -, do you think "mm-mmh, there goes another 34 milligrams of caffeine into my bloodstream"? When you drink coffee, tea, or even hot chocolate, do you consider this strange?

When you do any form of exercise and get an adrenaline high, do you consider this unthinkable?

"Drugs" are more prevalent than you think, and their dangerous or benign nature is usually completely disassociated from their legality. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, despite having been proven to be eventually lethal in moderate (not small) quantities, and, at least in the case of alcohol, mind-impairing. Caffeine also changes a person's reactions to things - a trait for which it is most often used.

Both alcohol and many of the non-nicotine elements of cigarettes are poisons; all forms of alcohol other than ethanol are lethal in even small amounts to humans (like rubbing alcohol), and many of the elements used in cigarettes are otherwise toxic substances. Nicotine in raw form is scarcely dangerous, as it is neither concentrated nor coated in other substances; only with the more recent advent of cigarettes have the dangers of processed nicotine come to a head.

Yet Marijuana is illegal, and has fewer negative side effects than most legal drugs. Many other drugs are nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol, caffeine, or tobacco, and they are considered illegal. Morphine and other sorts of painkillers are used routinely in medical operations, and they are otherwise illegal for civilian use.

So I disagree that using drugs is unthinkable. It is not a lifestyle choice that I choose to follow, but I do not condemn others for following it, save if they do it in a way likely to harm others or get them into trouble.

[KillerKow]

here's my opinion, frank and simple. People choose to be dumbasses, and they'll die for it in the end. Ignorance to known health hazards tends to do that.

It's not ignorance, it's the lack of caring. People who do these things know very well the effects, but simply do not care.

[Zerg_eater]

most people by the age of 12-17 Die from drinking Alcohol. Alcohol is the number one drug that most kids that age use. So, in my peer group, its caused by peer pressure. Usually, it's either that people are idiots, and do it to feel good, or they just hate their life. I don't think adults can get into pressure that easily. I think a good idea for people to stop chewing tobacco, is to chew gum instead. Sucking on a straw.....I don't think so. When I see a pack of cigarretes I usually throw it in the trash.

[UMSLdragon]

If you are getting your stats from those ages that already do some sort of drug usage, I would agree with you Z_E. But, in the general public range of 12-17, I don't fully agree that that many die from alcohol.

I wish I could throw every pack of cigs I see into the trash... problem is, I sell the blighters :concern:

[Prozerran]

Well, the problem with Alcohol is it's the number one killer because people do stupid things like trying to drive instead of spending $10-$20 on a cab. People do stupid things like drink too much, then try to take enough drugs to knock out an elephant and end up overdosing. Alcohol isn't really the killer here in most cases, it's the stupid things people do when they're drunk that kills them. Similarly, most drugs that kill actually do so because people decide to do something stupid like take more than they should reasonably take (i.e. enough to knock out an elephant). It's not that these chemicals are the killers at the drop of a hat. Drugs and alcohol kill because of the stupidity that ensues.

And if you die from smoking, there's one of two things that caused it. Either, you smoke wayyyyy more than you should every day, or you smoke a reasonable amount but you never exercise. It's pretty simple. If you enjoy smoking, do it, but be sure you do some form of aerobic exercise every day so your respiratory system cycles all the tar out of your lungs. It's the build up of tar that really leads to more complications and eventually things like cancer or emphyzema (sp?). And if you've ever been a smoker and worked out, it's one of THE BEST ways to quit. Nothing in my experience with cigarettes is as painful as trying to take a hit on a cigarette after you've jogged a couple of miles.

Everything in moderation is my motto, and if I didn't smoke so much already and I had more time to dedicate to exercise, I'd be more inclined to put my money where my mouth is. For now, I'll just rest on the theoretical and hope for the best.

[UMSLdragon]

I'd be more inclined to put my money where my mouth is.
Well, actually you do... you smoke your money. (sorry, I couldn't resist)

I agree with you Pro. But I wasn't getting at how the death takes place but that there aren't as many deaths as one might think... depending on which part of the population you are refering to. If you're refering your death toll out of the amount of people who drink, ya, it would be a higher percentage. But out of the general population, who many people drink to get drunk? IMO, I would say less than half? Depending on the town/city being observed.

nm, this is all really illrevelent to the actual topic.

So, is there a real reason why someone would partake in some form of drug related substances? If it's not for pleasure; nor peer pressure; nor status; nor escape. Then, just ignorance to the human body and/or spite? There are so many ideas and thoughts that can be interpetted... I guess it all depends on the specific person and their reasons.

[Anoiktos]

Well, the problem with Alcohol is it's the number one killer because people do stupid things like trying to drive instead of spending $10-$20 on a cab... ...Drugs and alcohol kill because of the stupidity that ensues.
Ye-es. They kill because the chemicals in them impair the reasoning ability of their imbibers. It's strange to expect someone who is drunk enough not to be able to drive to be able to reason that they should take a cab.

Saying that "it's the impairment, not the drug itself" is the reason people die is almost exactly like saying "Aids doesn't kill people, it just makes them weak to other pathogens". It's true, but that doesn't make it a particularly useful distinction.

[Prozerran]

Ye-es. They kill because the chemicals in them impair the reasoning ability of their imbibers. It's strange to expect someone who is drunk enough not to be able to drive to be able to reason that they should take a cab.

Saying that "it's the impairment, not the drug itself" is the reason people die is almost exactly like saying "Aids doesn't kill people, it just makes them weak to other pathogens". It's true, but that doesn't make it a particularly useful distinction.

The problem with your analogy is that it unfairly equates a temporary condition like intoxication for a terminal condition like HIV. It's pretty clear that the latter is terminal and absolute. Not every intoxicated person is absolutely unable to make a good decision. I can just as easily make the argument, "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people." It makes no difference to me. The distinction to be made here is that alcohol, when ingested in reasonably high amounts, doesn't cause someone to make stupid decisions.

People decide to drive their car when they're drunk because they spent all their money on the alcohol (so they don't have money for a cab - stupid decision), or they're just flat out unwilling to pay $20 if they can drive their drunk asses home - another stupid decision. Placing the blame on alcohol ONLY is just stupid to me. If you've ever been intoxicated to the point that you can't drive but you can still function, you'd know what you were talking about, and you wouldn't be trying to sell us on the idea that alcohol inhibits one's ability to make rational decisions. Alcohol causes difficult situations, sure, but it doesn't make decisions for people. People make their decisions and reap what they sow.

[Anoiktos]

I'm not sure about this, as you seem to be saying that alcohol doesn't cause someone to make stupid decisions ("alcohol, when ingested in reasonably high amounts, doesn't cause someone to make stupid decisions"). From the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm):

Is it safe to drink alcohol and drive?
No, alcohol use slows reaction time and impairs judgment and coordination, all skills needed to drive a car safely (2). The more alcohol consumed, the greater the impairment.

So, assuming that you're saying that the impairment of judgment while drunk and/or the decision to become drunk are less impaired decisions that a responsible person should be able to make, yes - I agree. Alcohol is not solely responsible for bad things people do while drunk. It is, however, responsible for increasing the chances that such bad decisions are made.

So my analogy, with the exception of the timeframe, as you point out, - substituting "alcohol leads to impairment", and/or for "AIDS leads to immunodeficiency", is correct. Both cases ignore a critical factor in the end result: in one case, the fact that alcohol's judgment impairing nature can turn a poor decision into a lethal one, in the other case, the fact that AIDS can turn a trivial disease into a lethal one.

Yes, a state of drunkenness tends to last less long than catching AIDS. Both, however, are not in and of themselves dangerous, and rely on other factors (a poor decision or a secondary pathogen) to show their colors. That is the portion of the analogy I wished to emphasize. So if you like, we could use the nonexistent pathogen TIDS (Temporary Immunodeficiency Syndrome) to make the analogy more accurate.

[Prozerran]

Your quote from the CDC speaks for itself, Anoiktos:

Is it safe to drink alcohol and drive?
No, alcohol use slows reaction time and impairs judgment and coordination, all skills needed to drive a car safely (2). The more alcohol consumed, the greater the impairment.

... impairs judgment and coordination, all skills needed to drive a car safely. While you may think this refers to one's ability to make sound choices, this does no such thing. Judgment in the context of this definition refers to judging distance, between vehicles, judging one's placement between the lines of a lane, etc. Decision-making can be loosely applied, if at all. This is getting into semantics, I know, but let's be clear. I'm not saying that alcohol in no way contributes to bad decisions. Alcohol intoxication creates difficult circumstances, but people who drink are still capable of making a sound decision. In cases where they don't and tragedy occurs, we'd like to say it was because of alcohol more than the individual's choice to drive while intoxicated. The sad truth is, it was the individual's choice, and s/he obviously made the wrong choice.

[Radiant]

As a smoker, ive been smoking for about 6 years. It may be a mindset thing, but its not really that easy to quit cold turkey style. People you hang out with, the stress and pressure you put on not only yourself, but others as well, you must factor into the so called "addiction." The fact that you have an addiction is irrelevent. there are other things to take into account. Just because you dont have the willpower to quit doesnt mean your addicted, it just means you have some other reasons to continue curbing your anger on. Some people NEED the nicotine to calm down, its their only source of relief for any pressure they might have. Thats just my standpoint on it.

[SgtHK]

The drugs that affect the brain and its functions are called narcotics. Most of them, like caffeine, alcohol, and even marijuana, have at least some beneficial effects. Caffeine makes people more alert and active. Alcohol kills harmful bacteria in the digestive system and, at moderate levels, is proven to be good for the heart. And marijuana makes you temporarily have 0% memory loss, meaning smoking marijuana while studying just before an exam will ensure a passing grade. But don't try that last statement I just said :concern:

Please remember that everything we consume in daily life are considered poisons when taken in overdose, even drinking very large volumes of water can be deadly. So alcohol, caffeine, and other narcotics are harmful only when people overdo them. Everything has a certain ''fine line'' which divides good from bad.

As a smoker, ive been smoking for about 6 years. It may be a mindset thing, but its not really that easy to quit cold turkey style. People you hang out with, the stress and pressure you put on not only yourself, but others as well, you must factor into the so called "addiction." The fact that you have an addiction is irrelevent. there are other things to take into account. Just because you dont have the willpower to quit doesnt mean your addicted, it just means you have some other reasons to continue curbing your anger on. Some people NEED the nicotine to calm down, its their only source of relief for any pressure they might have. Thats just my standpoint on it.
Mark Twain explained EXACTLY how easy it is to quit smoking: "I've tried it a hundred times" :D

[Anoiktos]

Alcohol intoxication creates difficult circumstances, but people who drink are still capable of making a sound decision. In cases where they don't and tragedy occurs, we'd like to say it was because of alcohol more than the individual's choice to drive while intoxicated. The sad truth is, it was the individual's choice, and s/he obviously made the wrong choice.
I really don't buy this. I've seen people drunk and not drunk, and the difference in the way they act, even while trying to be responsible and/or reasonable, isn't in the least reassuring, nor does it lead me to believe in any way that their choices are as good as they would have been were they not drunk.

You're saying that drunkenness somehow affects people's reflexes but not their cognitive ability, and I'm saying that from what I've seen of people who are drunk, this is absolutely not the case, and the difference is so stark that I have no idea why you would think it is.

You state:
I'm not saying that alcohol in no way contributes to bad decisions ... people who drink are still capable of making a sound decision.

Those two portions of that sentence are essentially mutually exclusive. If alcohol "contributes to bad decisions", as you imply above, then it will, by definition make people in certain circumstances "incapable of making a sound decision".

Essentially, you're arguing that because someone who's drunk can make a sound decision in the most ideal of circumstances, they should equally be able to make a sound decision in the harshest of circumstances. This is untrue.

If: Alcohol (contributes in some way to bad decisions), then as decision difficulty approaches infinity, at some point decision + alcohol will be much worse than decision without alcohol. Hence while alcohol is not solely responsible for that bad decision, it is stupid to place all of the blame on the person and imply that alcohol has little to do with it because "he should have been capable of making sound decisions".

[Prozerran]

I really don't buy this. I've seen people drunk and not drunk, and the difference in the way they act, even while trying to be responsible and/or reasonable, isn't in the least reassuring, nor does it lead me to believe in any way that their choices are as good as they would have been were they not drunk.

You're saying that drunkenness somehow affects people's reflexes but not their cognitive ability, and I'm saying that from what I've seen of people who are drunk, this is absolutely not the case, and the difference is so stark that I have no idea why you would think it is.

We're not going to have this argument if you're going to try and narrow it down to absolutes. I refuse to get sucked into a tired debate. The simple problem is that if you say that in all cases people who are drunk are incapable of making a good decision, then the vast number of people that DO plan ahead and actually call a cab AFTER THEY ARE DRUNK are somehow not drunk. Please, spare me.

You state:
I'm not saying that alcohol in no way contributes to bad decisions ... people who drink are still capable of making a sound decision.

Those two portions of that sentence are essentially mutually exclusive. If alcohol "contributes to bad decisions", as you imply above, then it will, by definition make people in certain circumstances "incapable of making a sound decision".

Essentially, you're arguing that because someone who's drunk can make a sound decision in the most ideal of circumstances, they should equally be able to make a sound decision in the harshest of circumstances. This is untrue.

If: Alcohol (contributes in some way to bad decisions), then as decision difficulty approaches infinity, at some point decision + alcohol will be much worse than decision without alcohol. Hence while alcohol is not solely responsible for that bad decision, it is stupid to place all of the blame on the person and imply that alcohol has little to do with it because "he should have been capable of making sound decisions".

Let's hear it for taking a single statement ENTIRELY out of context. Alcohol contributes to decisions insofar as the circumstances that result from being intoxicated. If you want to state that there exists some absolute ground to claim that if you are drunk you are unable to make sound decisions, then it must apply in all cases. Considering that drunk people do take cab rides home on their own accord (i.e. they make the conscious decision to hail a cab instead of drive), your position is unsound. Now, you can go about it from a logician standpoint all day, but until you actually take real world examples and apply them within the context, all you have is unsubstantiated theory. I'm not going to debate absolutes with you on this. It is a waste of time.

[Anoiktos]

We're not going to have this argument if you're going to try and narrow it down to absolutes. I refuse to get sucked into a tired debate. The simple problem is that if you say that in all cases people who are drunk are incapable of making a good decision, then the vast number of people that DO plan ahead and actually call a cab AFTER THEY ARE DRUNK are somehow not drunk.
That is *exactly* my point - you are stating, so far as I can tell, the absolute that people who are drunk should always be responsible for their actions. I am stating that the situation is nowhere near so clear, and that while decisions are made by people and may be poor or not, alcohol contributes to the poorness of decisions.

Hence the people who DO plan ahead have commendable foresight, but the fact that some people have commendable foresight does not entirely free alcohol from the burden of contributing to serious problems.

[Radiant]

people wouldnt have to worry about it if they just drank responsibly..like me XP

[Prozerran]

That is *exactly* my point - you are stating, so far as I can tell, the absolute that people who are drunk should always be responsible for their actions. I am stating that the situation is nowhere near so clear, and that while decisions are made by people and may be poor or not, alcohol contributes to the poorness of decisions.



You don't think people who are drunk should be held responsible for their actions? I'm sorry dude, but try going up in front of a judge and make the claim that you only shot and killed someone because you were drunk. That doesn't fly. You can't make alcohol this psychotropic drug when it isn't. People have free will even while intoxicated, which means they have the capability of making sound decisions. They just don't always make the best decisions. So, we can sit here all day long and bounce the ball back and forth.

Hence the people who DO plan ahead have commendable foresight, but the fact that some people have commendable foresight does not entirely free alcohol from the burden of contributing to serious problems.

And as far as commendable foresight, several people I've known to get intoxicated end up taking a cab because they choose to after they are drunk (whether they thought about it beforehand or not). But even if they do plan ahead, it would not matter if they were unable to make a sound decision while intoxicated and follow their commendable foresight.

And I'm not "freeing alcohol from the burden of contributing to serious problems." In fact, I very readily state that Alcohol contributes to problems associated with making a good decision. Alcohol creates difficult circumstances for one to make a sound, safe decision often resulting in an unsound, dangerous decision. Before you respond, please read my post, because I'm getting annoyed with you repeatedly mistating my position. This is the second time you've done it in this thread alone.

[UMSLdragon]

people wouldnt have to worry about it if they just drank responsibly..like me XP
lol, or you just don't drink at all !)

As an aside to all this, there is something to be said. Alcohol (ya, that substance) is a depressant. That is known. It slows down relay timing in the brain making thinking and actions sluggish. That can be observed and it is. In a book I read (Wheel of Time for your info.), they used a term. It was "wool headed." Partly because that was how they "felt." Felt like it was swimming and groping.

Anyways. The reason some can make better decisions while intoxicated than others is because, while semi-conscious because of the intoxication, you don't have a very good "hold" on your personality; you don't act the same way you used to. Everything that is surpressed during life that you don't want to show, is able to be shown because of the lack of control. Which is due to the propteries of the substance ingested.

Does that make any sense? I can try to explain further if it doesn't.

UMSL