NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, this is an unreasonable question.
But assuming one or the other must utterly be banned, which would you chose - intoxicants, cars, or both?

intoxicants. i can quit if i really want to. but driving is the only time i feel really alive. although if we get to keep motorbikes i'll not shed too many tears to see the end of the car.

Simple answer:

Cars, definitely cars.

Detailed answer:

I'd restrict car ownership heavily. No more suburban idiots driving diesel-driven Hemi trucks back and forth to work just because you can.=

Private cars.

You didn't need to make a whole new thread for this line of argument, you could have kept it in the drug thread.

Seemed like a good split at the time.

As for me, I'll take my intoxicant booze.

You didn't need to make a whole new thread for this line of argument, you could have kept it in the drug thread.

For reasons relating to practicality and principle I wouldn't support banning both, but I wouldn't be too bothered if both were banned.

Bars before cars. By which I mean banning cars first.

On a semi-related note,

In Connecticut, a sixteen year old can be licensed to drive a multi-ton conglomeration of steel and glass on city streets around hundreds of other people in similar vehicles and pedestrians, in any weather, day or night. ...

...but if he works at a grocery store, he has to be eighteen to operate a deli slicer because he might slice off a thumb.

And people wonder why I prefer insanity. :p

Intoxicants is a really broad category. A ban of "private cars" can be worked around.

Ban everything, then no one complains, ever because it's banned to speak.
Just for one day each year then back to normal after that.

On a semi-related note,

In Connecticut, a sixteen year old can be licensed to drive a multi-ton conglomeration of steel and glass on city streets around hundreds of other people in similar vehicles and pedestrians, in any weather, day or night. ...

...but if he works at a grocery store, he has to be eighteen to operate a deli slicer because he might slice off a thumb.

And people wonder why I prefer insanity. :p

I have never really wondered, myself.

And I vote for banning intoxicants, given such an awful choice.

can't we ban some of each?

a world without stella and "slow" drivers sounds nice

On a semi-related note,

In Connecticut, a sixteen year old can be licensed to drive a multi-ton conglomeration of steel and glass on city streets around hundreds of other people in similar vehicles and pedestrians, in any weather, day or night. ...

...but if he works at a grocery store, he has to be eighteen to operate a deli slicer because he might slice off a thumb.

And people wonder why I prefer insanity. :p

If insanity gives us more people like you, then I say, let's have more insanity. :)

People using drugs, if they harm anyone, harm only themselves. People in carss harm themselves, people in the local environment, and often end up killing others.

Banning private cars seems to be more intelligent.

I've love a definition of "private cars".

People using drugs, if they harm anyone, harm only themselves. People in carss harm themselves, people in the local environment, and often end up killing others.

Banning private cars seems to be more intelligent.

Is violent crime associated with drug use and trafficking non-existent in Canada?

Is violent crime associated with drug use and trafficking non-existent in Canada?

I was only comparing direct single use and its effects. If you want to start comparing entire industries, does that mean I can use the environmental destruction that results from our car-based petroleum addiction? And what about all the pollution that comes from making cars? The incredible amount of money and energy that goes into maintaining roads, driveways, parking lots, etc. is also a problem.

I could have mentioned all that, but for the sake of simplicity, I just compared the lone drug user to the lone car driver.

I was only comparing direct single use and its effects. If you want to start comparing entire industries, does that mean I can use the environmental destruction that results from our car-based petroleum addiction? And what about all the pollution that comes from making cars? The incredible amount of money and energy that goes into maintaining roads, driveways, parking lots, etc. is also a problem.

Feel free to start comparing entire industries. It'd be a much better argument for your position, IMO.

I could have mentioned all that, but for the sake of simplicity, I just compared the lone drug user to the lone car driver.

I understand that. I was just honestly curious as to whether or not Canada has the same problems with drug-related violence that we do in the US. I've not been there and I've never looked at the statistics for drug-related crime in Canada, but I figured you would have done both.

I think cars are the creation of the Devil, and God made lots of traffic lights and speed cameras to stop the devil, but then the devil ignores those and kills lots of people.
*jumps*

Feel free to start comparing entire industries. It'd be a much better argument for your position, IMO.

Too involved and far ranging for the amount of time I have to waste on NSG today, but ti would be fun.

I understand that. I was just honestly curious as to whether or not Canada has the same problems with drug-related violence that we do in the US. I've not been there and I've never looked at the statistics for drug-related crime in Canada, but I figured you would have done both.

Sorry, I've been having to repeat myself a lot lately. The stats are here: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040223/d040223a.htm

From my own experience, the worst is the gang wars for drug territory, i.e. biker wars. They still pale in comparison to the number of deaths from automobiles.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/stats/overview/2004/menu.htm

hmmm... we tried banning intoxicants in the US. that went over well. :rolleyes: however, banning Private Cars would be worse.

I vote banning Private Cars to people who indulge in too much intoxicants.

Too involved and far ranging for the amount of time I have to waste on NSG today, but ti would be fun.

Sorry, I've been having to repeat myself a lot lately.

Yeah, I've been watching those discussions. They don't look particularly fun.

The stats are here: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040223/d040223a.htm

From my own experience, the worst is the gang wars for drug territory, i.e. biker wars. They still pale in comparison to the number of deaths from automobiles.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/stats/overview/2004/menu.htm

Cool. Thanks for the links. I've skimmed them already, but I'll wait until later to do a thorough reading.

Is violent crime associated with drug use and trafficking non-existent in Canada?
Those only happen because prohibition drives up the price of the drugs.

Intoxicants. Why bother? I'm too young to use most of them anyway (under 21), and the rest are illegal aready.

Probably I'd go with intoxicants.

I was here first and I paid for these resources to squander :p

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

I just love Alpha Centauri.

Huh. And I had always thought that car fumes were highly intoxicating?

Moreso just the bolded part.

Huh. And I had always thought that car fumes were highly intoxicating?

Those only happen because prohibition drives up the price of the drugs.

I'm aware of the influence that government policy has on drug costs, thanks.

I vote to ban ban-happy people. If you don't want intoxicants, cars, whatever.. we can ship you off to some Mormon commune somewhere with no cars, intoxicants, or electricity. Meanwhile the rest of us get to continue having fun, probably until it kills us, but at least we die happy.

I just love Alpha Centauri.
Morgan was right, by the way.

I'm aware of the influence that government policy has on drug costs, thanks.
Great. That solves the problem.

By legalising the intoxicants, the crime goes away. That eliminates the harm angle, thus proving Gift-of-God's point.

That's actually a really difficult question, I refuse to answer.

Great. That solves the problem.

By legalising the intoxicants, the crime goes away. That eliminates the harm angle, thus proving Gift-of-God's point.

Why do you feel the need to continue to state the obvious at me?

See as I don't have a license, I'll keep my intoxicants.

hmmmm. well if i want the ban to work, id say cars. we've been trying to ban intoxicants for most of a hundred years and it hasnt worked yet.

if i DIDNT want the ban to work...

Cars. It'd be amazing to see how quickly L.A would manage to put together a decent public transport infrastructure when it wasn't just for all them poorz.

hmmmm. well if i want the ban to work, id say cars. we've been trying to ban intoxicants for most of a hundred years and it hasnt worked yet.

if i DIDNT want the ban to work...

What makes you think a ban on cars would be any more successful?

Both. Pure and simple.

I'd give up owning a car before giving up the ability to kick back and enjoy some beer with friends.

What makes you think a ban on cars would be any more successful?

you dont make your own car and drive it in the privacy of your home. you dont smuggle it into the country in your pantlegs.

Intoxicants, I'm against public transportation expect in cities.

We just need harder drivers tests.

If I absolutely had to choose, then cars.

Intoxicants, I'm against public transportation expect in cities.

We just need harder drivers tests.

Yes, especially with the shit drivers that live in my city. Some dumbass almost nailed me the other day going 60 on the off ramp.

Cars definitely. I hate the bloody things and I hate driving. Intoxicants on the other hand....

Cars. I hate them.

you dont make your own car and drive it in the privacy of your home. you dont smuggle it into the country in your pantlegs.

Well, it would be rather difficult to conceal illegal cars, but I figure that some people would resist such a ban.

**retrieves suit, fedora, tommy gun, bad Chicago gangster accent, and speedboat**

Awesome. :D

Yes, this is an unreasonable question.
But assuming one or the other must utterly be banned, which would you chose - intoxicants, cars, or both?

Both, specifically in the form of cars being driven by intoxicated drivers.

Shockingly reasonable and probably most effective.

...but I figure that some people would resist such a ban.

**retrieves suit, fedora, tommy gun, bad Chicago gangster accent, and speedboat**

ban humans from driving, replace with self driving cars; problem(s) solved.

On a semi-related note,

In Connecticut, a sixteen year old can be licensed to drive a multi-ton conglomeration of steel and glass on city streets around hundreds of other people in similar vehicles and pedestrians, in any weather, day or night. ...

...but if he works at a grocery store, he has to be eighteen to operate a deli slicer because he might slice off a thumb.

And people wonder why I prefer insanity. :p
But of course. If he slices off his thumb, how will he drive that multi-ton conglomeration of steel and glass?

Cars. I hate them.

Where do you live? I think you might be American (or maybe Canadian)? Do you drive? I too hate cars and one of the joys of living in London is that it's cheaper, faster and more convenient to use public transport than the car. I found that in America - and especially in L.A - it seems to be incredibly difficult to get by without a car. I had to learn to drive because, despite the fact it's a large city, Los Angeles is near impossible to negotiate without a car.

ban humans from driving, replace with self driving cars; problem(s) solved.

That could work right up until some hacker hits the Big Red Button and causes a 100-car pileup. Or some unforseen bug does the same thing. Manual override for the win.

This is why modern cars let you switch off things like traction control. ;)

So, what's with all the car hate in this thread?

Cars? i can do without, but many people can't in North America because of where many neighbourhoods and businesses are situated. But if anybody bans alcohol, i'm taking it to the streets and dying with my last beer in my hand :mp5:

Oh joy, detoxification and technophobia! Both choices look so appealing I just can't choose between them.

Yes, this is an unreasonable question.
But assuming one or the other must utterly be banned, which would you chose - intoxicants, cars, or both?

Well it seems not too unreasonable. Banning private cars would be fine and fair, both for people (more emphasis on physical health with walking and cycling), for society (people walking or using public transport are not so alone as each in his own car), and environment (obviously).

As well there are many side benefits (e.g. for family budgets).

Intoxicants may have to be limited (as they are already), but banning them is not so good for everyone.

you don't have to ban possession of anything. that isn't the issue anyway.

you just don't have to keep spending tax money for roads that only bennifit drivers of cars, and you certainly don't have to keep licensing the sale of intoxicants by the to be consumed on the premisses dose, where the only way to get there and back is by someone driving.

you also don't have to have policies which encourage the manufacture and or sale of either. i think that's where the real solution can be found.

that and requiring intoxicants by the glass to ONLY be sold in locations that are accessable by PUBLIC transportation!

my philosophy on fire arms and non-alcohaulic neurotropic substances is similar.

the don't have to be mass produced either. nor sold. nor wholesale imported.

while penalizing no one, who 'home brews' in reasonable, not mass or wholesale, quantities. nor happens to have any of these items or substances, agian in no more then personal consumption quantities, in their possession.

=^^=
.../\...

If something has to go, intoxicants, of course.
Private cars can be subject to regulations, limiting their use, limiting the pollutants in the exhausts etc. Intoxicants are... well... intrinsecally toxic.
Anyway, I won't dream of taking away "mild" intoxicants (cannabis, coffee, tea, chocolate...) or even "strong" intoxicants (alcohol), but made milder by intelligent and moderate use.

intoxicants by the glass to ONLY be sold in locations that are accessable by PUBLIC transportation!


This is an interesting idea. Maybe a bit difficult to implement.

This is an interesting idea. Maybe a bit difficult to implement.
why would it be at all difficult to impliment, other then in extremely low density rural areas?

don't applications for liquor licences require addressess of the bussiness in question? would it be that hard to have a computer look up to see how far that address is from the nearest public transit?

don't zoning codes already influence where licour licensencees may be located?

=^^=
.../\...

why would it be at all difficult to impliment, other then in extremely low density rural areas?
Exactly because of that, and the availability of private transport.


don't applications for liquor licences require addressess of the bussiness in question? would it be that hard to have a computer look up to see how far that address is from the nearest public transit?

Yes, but I see big protests coming. Also, you'd need some police on the spot to force intoxicated people to take public transportation. Better placing an helluva number of anti-alcohol and anti-drugs control on drivers.



don't zoning codes already influence where licour licensencees may be located?

No, at least no here.

Cars. What am I supposed to use to drown my sorrows that intoxicants were banned if intoxicants are banned?

Intoxicants.

They just do so much more harm than they do good.

I can't really think of much actual good that they do.

I can think of a hell of a lot of bad.

And I certainly don't agree with people who think cannabis should be legalised.


Why would we want to legalise MORE intoxicants?


You're taking something to change the way your mind works so that it doesn't work like it should!

It's like shooting yourself in the foot.

Well it seems not too unreasonable. Banning private cars would be fine and fair, both for people (more emphasis on physical health with walking and cycling), for society (people walking or using public transport are not so alone as each in his own car), and environment (obviously).

As well there are many side benefits (e.g. for family budgets).

Intoxicants may have to be limited (as they are already), but banning them is not so good for everyone.

A world without cars? The goverment controlling where you can go? Yeah right.

I live 23 miles from the nearest town, what the FUCK am I supposed to do with no car?

I live 23 miles from the nearest town, what the FUCK am I supposed to do with no car?
Haven't you realised yet? People only want to ban things they don't like, use or need themselves.

On anything else, they're perfect little libertarians.