Why do young women in Britain drink themselves to oblivion?

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by Cifo
As for the OP, the women getting plastered are the proximate cause for their own drunkenness.

Observably so.

The women apparently are drinking by choice.

The actual reasoning and circumstances that lead to such choice are likely as variable as the women themselves.

As a late teenager, I recall one or two occasions of over-indulgence which resulted in a long commune with nature, recycling the contents of my stomach, in privacy.

I was taught that one is responsible for one's choices and consequences.

Lack of experience with alcohol and it's effects on my biology were the precipitating factors in my first negative encounters with alcohol as a socializing substance.

Negative reinforcement only took a couple of times before I learned to drink at my own pace, not to mix drinks and to say 'No thanks, I'm fine.'

I can only guess at the reasons that some of these women would care to engage in such conduct on a regular basis. Their pain threshold must be considerably higher than mine, or the pain they are running from must be even greater, perhaps.....:shrug:

 

[billvon]

No, once again. The equivalent must include that the marijuana growers know the water is poisoned and is making their marijuana crops toxic to humans, but they go ahead and traffic the marijuana anyway.

Not really, since they did not warn anyone they were putting the methanol in industrial alcohol (other than the manufacturers, of course.) The prevailing attitude was "well, if they don't find out, it's not our problem; they're doing something illegal anyway."

In the real-life case with Prohibition, The criminal masterminds are closer to the intentional deaths than are the alcohol manufacturers who poisoned the alcohol or the government that ordered them to do it.

Again, no. The people drinking illegally were the closest to the intentional deaths. The government (who intentionally poisoned the product) are culpable as well, though.

For another example, imagine a local police force erects a temporary concrete barrier in the road to stop people for sobriety tests. The speed limit is 55, and they position it around a blind turn so that someone driving 55 will be able to stop in time.

A driver comes around the corner doing 70, cannot stop in time, and hits the barrier. He and his family are killed. The police state "well, we warned people we'd be doing sobriety checkpoints this month, so they had all the warning they needed." You could claim that the driver, by breaking the law, bore most of the responsibility - but the government bears a significant amount as well. Indeed, one could easily imagine criminal proceedings against the police chief who proposed such a deadly barrier.

 

[wynn]

The idea that the government poisoned bootleg whiskey and that the government did so to kill people who drank illegally is misleading and inflammatory, but I do admit that what the government actually did was dangerous, deadly and wrong and definitely not the best solution (no pun intended) for enforcing Prohibition. Let's not, for example, make it sound like the government skulked around secretly poisoning moonshiners' stills (or legitimate alcohol-producers, or leftover bottles in people's liquor cabinets), and then running back to their offices and slavering over reports of drinkers dropping dead or going blind or crazy.

In actuality, the government required the manufacturers of industrial alcohol (which was already unfit for human consumption) to "denature" it — that is, make it poisonous, and thus, wholly unfit for human consumption. Criminal masterminds then stole the alcohol, hired chemists to try to "renature", sold it to purchasers (eg, owners of speakeasys), who sold it to customers, who then drank it.

In addition to stating that #1) what the government did was dangerous, deadly and wrong, let's also admit that this is also true for #2) the makers of the denatured industrial alcohol, #3) the mastermind criminals, #4) the "renaturing" chemists, #5) the purchasers, and #6) the drinkers.

I think that the reasons for enforcing the illegality of a substance or activity play a part in establishing degrees of culpability.

From Wiki:

On November 18, 1918, before the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, the United States Congress passed the temporary Wartime Prohibition Act, which banned the sale of alcoholic beverages having an alcohol content of greater than 2.75%.[4] (This act, which was intended to save grain for the war effort, was passed after the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918.) The Wartime Prohibition Act took effect June 30, 1919, and July 1, 1919 became widely known as the "Thirsty-First".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

There is a history of countries prohibiting alcohol on moral reasons, but if this prohibition was with the intention to save grain for war effort, then the situation is mora akin to when during combat, the officer in charge shoots and kills a deserting soldier.

Such shooting is nor murder, is not illegal, serves as a threat to others and an exhortation to continue the battle.

 

[Stoniphi]

...however, Carrie Nation and the Christian Temperance Union were NOT trying to 'save grain for the war effort', they were imposing their "Christian" morality on others who disagreed with them. This is common knowledge.

She cried in the balcony when alcohol Prohibition was finally repealed in 1933, many years after WW 1 had ended.

I haven't heard much about officers shooting deserters during battles recently. At least not in any current American wars. Could you please cite an example of this behavior?

No. If you deliberately adulterate something with poison that you are aware is going to be ingested by other people - whether or not you agree with them doing that - then you are responsible for the deaths - period. What they were doing before you interfered would not kill them. The change you made killed them. You wear it.

 

[wynn]

...however, Carrie Nation and the Christian Temperance Union were NOT trying to 'save grain for the war effort', they were imposing their "Christian" morality on others who disagreed with them. This is common knowledge.

She cried in the balcony when alcohol Prohibition was finally repealed in 1933, many years after WW 1 had ended.

Like I said:

There is a history of countries prohibiting alcohol on moral reasons,
but if this prohibition was with the intention to save grain for war effort ...

I haven't heard much about officers shooting deserters during battles recently. At least not in any current American wars. Could you please cite an example of this behavior?

In the United States, before the Civil War, deserters from the Army were flogged; while, after 1861, tattoos or branding were also adopted. The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death, although this punishment was last applied to Eddie Slovik in 1945. No U.S. serviceman has received more than 18 months imprisonment for desertion or missing movement during the Iraq War.

...
"306 British and Commonwealth soldiers [were] executed for...desertion during World War I," records the Shot at Dawn Memorial.
...
Of the Germans who deserted the Wehrmacht, 15,000 men were executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion

This was also the theme of the book and film Paths of glory, made after a true story.

No. If you deliberately adulterate something with poison that you are aware is going to be ingested by other people - whether or not you agree with them doing that - then you are responsible for the deaths - period. What they were doing before you interfered would not kill them. The change you made killed them. You wear it.

In wartime, different principles apply than in times of peace.

 

[Cifo]

[The federal government] did not warn anyone they were putting the methanol in industrial alcohol (other than the manufacturers, of course.)

False. The Volstead Act explicitly required the manufacturers of industrial ethanol to make their products undrinkable, thus the public (along with the manufacturers) had good reason that any alcoholic beverage they bought would be undrinkable.

The prevailing attitude was "well, if they don't find out, it's not our problem; they're doing something illegal anyway."

Please provide a legitimate cite for the above-stated "attitude" (blogs don't count).

The people drinking illegally were the closest to the intentional deaths.

True, in a sense. Because it was not illegal to possess or drink alcoholic beverages, it was actually the purchasers of alcoholic beverages who had no reasonable expectation that any such products were inspected for safety or health purposes; besides the public already had a reasonable expectation that any alcoholic beverage they bought would be undrinkable. (See above.)

The government (who intentionally poisoned the product) are culpable as well, though.

Yes, although — once again — even though the federal government did not poison the products, the government had some responsibility, and I have said as much; however, the manufacturers certainly knew it was undrinkable, the criminal masterminds who stole/diverted the industrial ethanol also knew it was undrinkable, and so did the chemists they hired who also knew exactly what was in it.
Here is quite an extensive article in the 15 Jan 1922 New York Times, in the early days of Prohibition about the dangers of methanol in unlawfully purchased alcoholic beverages. Thus, the idea that the public was grossly unaware of the dangers of methanol-tainted alcoholic beverages is — well — a myth.

Please note: This subject matter has gone off topic and become repetitious, and I will not post on it here again.

 

[billvon]

False. The Volstead Act explicitly required the manufacturers of industrial ethanol to make their products undrinkable, thus the public (along with the manufacturers) had good reason that any alcoholic beverage they bought would be undrinkable.

No. The process of "renaturing" denatured alcohol was well established (although selling the result of the process was of course illegal) and thus a member of the public had evidence that the alcohol produced from the process was safe to drink. Indeed, he saw such alcohol consumed regularly with no ill effect - at least at first, while the denaturing products were relatively easy to remove.

The government did not like that people were making safe-to-drink alcohol from denatured alcohol, so they devised a new method to denature it - one that made it deadly. They did not warn the public about this addition because, in their mind, they were already scofflaws and deserved whatever happened to them as a result of their lawless activity.

Please provide a legitimate cite for the above-stated "attitude" (blogs don't count).

Sure. New York City Medical Examiner legitimate enough?

"The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol . . .yet it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible."

 

[Stoniphi]

...officers shooting deserters during battles recently

In wartime, different principles apply than in times of peace.

Uh huh. Profound thought, however it does not justify the US federal government deliberately killing US citizens en mass.

 

[wynn]

Uh huh. Profound thought, however it does not justify the US federal government deliberately killing US citizens en mass.

The citizens apparently knew that the alcohol was not safe for human consumption, and they also knew it was illegal to produce, sell, buy and consume alcohol.

Should illegal substances be made safe?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

The citizens apparently knew that the alcohol was not safe for human consumption, and they also knew it was illegal to produce, sell, buy and consume alcohol.

Should illegal substances be made safe?

Should Big Brother make 'immoral' substances deadly?

 

[wynn]

Should Big Brother make 'immoral' substances deadly?

Should the citizens be wimps?

That Big Brother was elected into his position. He could have just as easily been removed, if that is what the people truly desired.
But the consumption of alcohol, spiked with methanol or not, apparently impairs people's ability to act on their desires. One more reason to do away with it.

 

[billvon]

The citizens apparently knew that the alcohol was not safe for human consumption, and they also knew it was illegal to produce, sell, buy and consume alcohol.

Should illegal substances be made safe?

Nope. Nor should they be made deadly.

If someone places a shipping container in the middle of a highway, and someone slams into it and dies, "well, he could have stopped if he hadn't been speeding, so I did nothing wrong putting it there" does not work as a defense.

 

[billvon]

That Big Brother was elected into his position. He could have just as easily been removed, if that is what the people truly desired.

"Big Brother" (i.e. prohibition) was indeed removed.

 

[Stoniphi]

What Bill said, Sig.

 

[Ghost_007]

Don't know if this has been mentioned as I haven't read through all 6 pages but the laws regarding drinking in the UK seem to be very different from mainland Europe.

In the UK you can't drink in public places, not in trains, not really out in the streets - as far as I am aware. I've seen the police confiscate beer from guys who seem to be just having a casual drink while on the go. They can just take your bottle or can off you.

When in Germany, in the evenings you can smell booze in the trains and other public places, it is very different from the UK.

 

[wynn]

"Big Brother" (i.e. prohibition) was indeed removed.

So where's the problem?

Other than perhaps some people thinking that democracy should come freely and require no sacrifices?

 

[Stoniphi]

Remember that interpersonal disconnect I mentioned to you before elsewhere? Most of us care about other people because we are able to bond with them, to relate to them and to care for them - even if we have not even met them. This is "empathy" and it leads us to care about what happens to them. "Altruism" motivates us to discuss wrongs done to others and to try to figure out ways to lesson or eliminate those.

When we find that the people we have elected to care for all of us (the government) have not only let us down in that, but have chosen to kill us, our brothers and sisters, our fellow citizens, without either good cause or due process under law (as explicitly detailed in our federal constitution), we get concerned that they may well do this again and some more. Thus our concern.

I recall that you do not quite understand this aspect of human behavior, but rest assured that most others amongst us here do. While you may not share these simple sentiments, rationally it behooves you to consider that many of the rest of us do and it is important to us. I hope that this helps you to understand why we are so concerned about our government killing us - if they did it a couple of times, how are we to assure that they will not do so again?

 

[wynn]

I recall that you do not quite understand this aspect of human behavior, but rest assured that most others amongst us here do. While you may not share these simple sentiments, rationally it behooves you to consider that many of the rest of us do and it is important to us. I hope that this helps you to understand why we are so concerned about our government killing us - if they did it a couple of times, how are we to assure that they will not do so again?

Your contempt for me is duly noted.

I also note that you might not be so sharp in analyzing moral and legal issues.

 

[billvon]

So where's the problem?

Well, there was a problem - both with prohibition and the government poisoning people. Both problems were solved.

Other than perhaps some people thinking that democracy should come freely and require no sacrifices?

Hmm. So sometimes democracy requires the government to kill ten thousand or so of its citizens? Interesting take.

 

[wynn]

Hmm. So sometimes democracy requires the government to kill ten thousand or so of its citizens? Interesting take.

No. Sometimes, it apparently takes thousands of citizens to die before the others realize they can impeach their government.