Breaking the Wall

Thank goodness for Firefox spell check. But it has made me very lazy.

You also do not need a license to have a baby. This was rather scary to me, especially when they sent us home 2 days later without a manual, warranty, or any training.

Here is a link (copy and past the whole thing) of a picture of you finishing TOU I took from a screen capture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30864837@N08/2885872670/

original is number 32 at http://www.hjnews.com/photography/2008/09/20/top-of-utah-marathon/

AndyB pointed these out. You may already know about it.

Don't forget a license to hunt as well, even for gun use you have to have a permit. But alcohol nothing, just down right crazy. Anyone can get a fake ID and past their age to drink.

Great word for the day "dunamis" meaining POWER.

ahhh don't do that to the kid let him play soccer competetively, it is a great game you can play your whole life... and plus there is great soccer history in Russia!

I agree with agbooth23 let him play, because it will also improve his running. It's great for fitness too. Who's knows if he's good enjoy in soccer he could get a scholarship.

Injuries happen in all sports. I coach three soccer teams and I think it has to be the best sport for young kids. As they get older and have more weight and more speed and force injuries do occur at a higher rate.

Of your nontrack athletes soccer players make the best distance runners. When my sister in-law played at the Y after practice she would spend at least an additional hour running every day if not more. I hate to see any child get pigeonholed into anyone sport especially at such a young age. I hope you reconsider and let him continue to play especially if he wants to.

I played soccer for 12 years and loved it! Injuries happen, can't let it stop you! If everyone who got injured running decided to stop running, there would be almost no runners left.

Not to mention organized sports like soccer, basketball, and others help kids learn teamwork, sportsmanship, "coachability", and other life-long attributes that you just don't get from running.

He does not want to. I asked him if he wanted to finish the season - he said no. He likes soccer to a point, but not enough to risk being crippled over it.

Plus, his chances of getting a soccer scholarship are very close to zero. He is better than your average sedentary video gamer, but nowhere near the best kids even at the Provo City youth soccer level. His chances of getting a scholarship in distance running are much higher. He is the best in the state among kids his age.

So we'll play other sports, it is good for overall development, but we'll keep it in perspective.

I played 13 years of baseball and 5 years of football and it was a blast. It taught me how to work with a team and be a team player. It's good interaction.

Interesting thought on the license needs... You also need to go through a whole bunch of requirements/paperwork to get a divorce, and yet you need almost nothing to get married!!!

With marriage/divorce it is understandable because a broken marriage has some serious social consequences. However, with alcohol consumption vs driving, it is a different story. If we require one to prove that he can drive responsibly, we should also require one to prove that he can consume alcohol responsibly if there is such a thing, in my opinion, the moment you put some in you never know what's going to happen next. But for the sake of the argument, and to bring every one in agreement, let's say there are people in society that are able to consume alcohol responsibly. It goes without argument that we already have a good number that are not able to do so. So I hope everyone agrees in concept that a guy who has a DUI, has been violent under the influence, or applied for welfare because his alcohol abuse made him incapable of holding a job should not be able to buy alcohol. This no more "fun" for him, his "fun" is becoming a danger to society, and he has clearly demonstrated that he is unable to have his "fun" under control. Speaking strictly from the financial point of view, if you are not that type of guy, he is costing you personally a thousand or two a year in taxes, I would imagine. With that in mind, I wonder why we do not have a policy of requiring one to buy a license that would go with a background check before we allow him to purchase alcohol.

One obvious answer is that the guys that would see their taxes lowered while experiencing only a minor inconvenience if none at all are drastically in a minority. Or maybe we do not believe it would lower our taxes.

I would also like to see there be a license for buying Cheetos. Nay, all junk food that matter. Health problems caused by poor diet and exercise cost us all dearly in insurance premiums. We should regulate everything we can possibly think of us.

"Uh, one bag of Doritos, please"

"Are you under 150 lbs?"

"Uh, yeah."

"Can I see your license and latest chloresterol test?"

typo: "think of" rather than "think of us". There should be a license for being able to post blog comments.

Yup, if he doesn't want to play soccer, then that is his choice. Your blog just made it sound like a unilateral parent decision, not a joint kid-parent decision.

I say tell him to work his brain and go for the academic scholarship! All colleges give those, while many don't do sports scholarships... plus bodies get injured but intellegence is always yours!

Paul - My 4 year old son and daughter's and wife would have a fit if you had to buy a license for cheetos.

Personally, I agree all they are is fried junk with process powder cheese ingredients and tons of oil. I tell them all your eating is nothing but garbage for your belly. But than again I'm just as bad... they should have a Kory license's that says "Kory Wheatley is not allowed to purchase POP anywhere in the United States" maybe that would get rid of my pop addiction. Although, I would probably have it smuggled in from Mexico.

Jon - excellent words of advice. Working for a University I favor the Academic way of achieving. Because you can never get enough education and it will always benefit you.

I'll comment just to get Sasha on the hot discussion list.

A no tolerance policy for DUI's sounds fair to me. After all, convicted criminals are not allowed to vote on general elections ever, right?

I'm with Paul on the unhealthy food too. However, some people believe running as much as some of us do is unhealthy too - and their "proof" is in the fact that we often get injured, therefore increasing THEIR medical insurance costs...

Certainly, Lucia. I've probably single-handily raised premiums for Select Health customers! My running license should be revoked for at least 120 days! But on the other hand, I've helped pay for new Porches for my podiatrist, rheumatologist, chiropractor(s), and physical therapists. Keeps the economy hummin' ;-)

Running is pretty healthy, but the kind of running WE do is not. I mean, just look at the mental health alone of most of us... serious ODC. :P

That's "OCD," Paul.

he he - good eyes Tyler. Obviously I am going mad.

Lucia - and there is no way you can keep a DUI offender from buying alcohol if the only thing they check when you do is your age. Common sense dictates that alcohol should not be allowed to purchase without a permit.

Sasha - For common sense to prevail in a situation like this, you would first have to convince people that doing whatever they want isn't one of our inalienable rights. Until then, I don't think that common sense should dictate anything - most people don't think enough for common sense like yours to actually be common.

Sometimes this country seems to put more value on people's "privacy" than on the safety and well being of others. Imagine if you could put a tracking device on serious criminals, like rapists, child molesters, etc. Wouldn't that make things safer? But it'll never happen because of "privacy" issues.

Lucia:

Actually while serving a mission in Salt Lake City I once talked to a guy who was on probation. He claimed he had a tracking device and the parole officer would page him every time the tracking device reported something odd.

To quote: "But for the sake of the argument, and to bring every one in agreement, let's say there are people in society that are able to consume alcohol responsibly. It goes without argument that we already have a good number that are not able to do so."

You have to start off with the presumption that most people do drink responsibly. Then, you can set a subset that do not. You should not preface this the other way around. However, to regulate the responsible people because of the actions of the irresponsible is a course to government control of too many aspects of our lives. Where does it stop, junk food, cigarettes (I breath second hand smoke, therefore you must have a license), religious preferences, etc.

This is a slippery slope you are on...

I would always rather have more freedoms and be infringed upon (i.e. second hand smoke, drunk drivers, offensive words, etc) rather than not have the freedoms in the first place.

It would also be extremely expensive to monitor, police, and prosecute people for all those behaviors - a black market would be created for all those things, no doubt. Much more beneficial could be to spend that money and efforts on educating people about their choices, and perhaps creating incentives for people to lead healthier lives (lower car insurance premiums for people who don't drink, lower medical insurance costs for those who keep their weight down and don't smoke) - we're starting to see something like that, maybe it's something that will grow in the future.

This subject is sort of getting wild from one topic to the next. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the bailout.

Bailout? What bailout? I think you mean the proposed bailout.

Jon:

I had all of the above freedoms/infringements growing up the Soviet Union. Drunk drivers, just plain drunks roaming the streets, second hand smoke everywhere you go including university classrooms, and plenty of profanity.

No real freedoms, though. Unless the "inalienable right" to drink alcohol can be considered a real freedom worth dying for.

Jeff - I have met A LOT of people in my life that have experienced problems as a direct result of their and/or somebody else's inability to control their alcohol consumption. I do not have to go any further than my neighbor. His mother divorced his father due to the father's alcohol abuse. He is still suffering from the injuries he experienced in a DUI accident in a car driven by one of his drunk friends. He has a DUI of his own, and because of that recently failed a background check when applying for a job. Because of his addition he is unable to support himself or his pregnant girlfriend, and guess who does support them - the government.

We have PLENTY people who are unable to control their drinking, more than you think. If you do not believe me, try this. Pick an average neighborhood near your home. Visit as many people as you can and try to get to know as many people as you can well enough so they will tell you their life story in truth. This will be quite an eye opener.

Matt - Of course I meant proposed if there is such a thing.

So your sample size is 1? I know plenty of folks (in my neighborhood and beyond) who drink responsibly (sample size significantly more than 1). If you are against drinking alcohol, that is fine - don't do it. But don't put your morals in front of mine and say the someone should regulate my choices. I know of many people who have been injured, for the sake of your argument, in car accidents that had nothing to do with alcohol. Should we regulate if you can listen to the radio in the car? Have a conversation in a car? How about making it a law that you can't drive unless you have had 8 hours of sleep? I would have to walk to work everyday!

If your neighbor failed a background check for a job because of a conviction on his record, that is a consequence of his actions. There are other jobs to be had that don't required a background check that he could also apply for. However, that is not a reason to regulate my desire to have a beer in a responsible fashion!

Again, this is not about just alcohol, but if you start here, the floodgates can and WILL open to regulation of other aspects of our lives. Think McCarthism, that is a great model for government regulation of our freedoms!

Cheers!

Lucia:

The system of alcohol consumption licensing would not be hard to implement on top of the already existing infrastructure. All you need is to print a strip with a bar code. You'd be able to apply for it online and receive the code once you pass the background check. Places that sell alcohol will need to have a bar code scanner and an internet connection. The clerk scans the bar code, the remote application retrieves a picture of the person's ID document to make sure the face matches. With a background check API available AskSasha.Com could build the web system for under $5K.

As far as making sure things do not happen under the table, it is no different from what we have for selling alcohol to minors.

I find it interesting that the argument of "difficult to enforce" is rarely used for abolishing speed limits and other traffic laws. And how the fact that if you are 1 mph over the speed limit you could in theory (and sometimes in practice) get a ticket does not make too many people think their rights are being violated but the moment you mention alcohol it is a different story.

Why?

Jon, Jeff - what are your thoughts on the increased security at the airports? Most people that fly do not want to blow up or highjack a plane. But when flying we are OK with the idea that the security agents assume that one of us could possibly have plans to do it, and do not feel any of the inalienable rights have been violated, at least not enough to raise a commotion sufficient to change the law. If you do number_of_deaths_per_incident times probability_of_deadly_outcome, it is not immediately clear which one will be higher - the air travel or the purchase of alcohol. One could make a strong argument that the alcohol number will be higher. But we do not think much about it because alcohol deaths happen one at a time and are always more private, while the deaths from the terror acts are always in the news. Back to the parable of the boiled frog - if you turn up the heat fast, it will notice and jump out, but if you do it slowly, it will not notice and boil to death.

Jeff:

My sample size is much greater than one. I would say there are at least another 3 households out of about 20 in my block with fairly obvious signs of trouble related to alcohol. Believe me - I know what I am talking about. I've done quite a bit of neighborhood sampling in my life.

Personally, I think the security at airports is a joke. It is just a show to make us feel safe at great cost/inconvenience. I don't think it does much at all to add to air safety. But that is another story.

Part of life is the risk of being infringed upon. That's life! Preventative education and harsh consequences for infringing on others are ok with me. But I don't think the government or anyone else should limit most aspects of my life. We all have different tolerances for where that limit is, though, as evidenced by Jeff/Sasha.

Jon - if we live in a democracy, and we still have those safety procedures, then most people must not feel the way you do about it, at least not strongly enough to have changed the law. Why is it that most of us are OK jumping through a bunch of hoops and dealing with numerous restrictions to get on a plane, but at the same time are so vehemently against having to deal with almost any form of inconvenience while buying alcohol?

Apparently because no one has yet blown up a beer factory, hence the government can't use fear of that as a way of increasing control. Also, because the alcohol must have better lobbyists...

Sasha,

I know your a religious man and you love the Lord but what you are saying is real close to what the Bible says about the mark of the beast although you are saying put the information on a paper it would be the next step closer to putting the chip in your head hand or whatever I am not a drinker but that just does not seem right either way it would be wrong. And another thing if a parent allows the child to drop out of a team sport is that telling the child that the team doesn't matter it is a team sport and they should have to support the team until the end.

Rachelle - this would not be any different that wearing a bib number in a race, having an SSN number, a driver's license number, a credit card number, or some other form of ID that we are required to use to receive certain benefits or services. The mark of the beast discussed in the Book of Revelations is symbolic. In my opinion it refers to engaging in activities associated with evil and the symbols associated with those activities, e.g a tattoo identifying you as a gang member, not to methods we use to identify people to perform worthwhile activities more efficiently.

Sasha

Very good insite what you said is true but the way technology is going it could easily happen. On the other hand I know you are a determined father but what about making our children finish what they start, If your son hurt his knee in soccer than wouldn't making him run hurt it also, so what about making him go and support his team anyway he did sign up for it.

Quick comment regarding drinking and driving and deaths - Lybi did a quick bit of research, and over 140,000 people die each year from alcohol-related injuries. Arizona actually has some of the toughest DUI laws in the country. 1. If you receive a misdemeanor DUI, you will go to jail for up to 10 days and your license may be suspended for 90 days. 2. For the second offense, 90 days in jail, license is suspended for a full year, and you are required to have (and pay for) an ignition interlock device installed, which requires you to breath in it just to start the vehicle, and then at random intervals while driving. 3. For extreme DUI (b.a.c. over 0.15), 30 days in jail, license suspended for 90 days, and you must pay for an ignition interlock device to be installed. 4. Second extreme DUI, 120 days in jail, lose your license for a year, ignition interlock. 5. Felony DUI, up to 10 years in prison, lose your license for 5 years, up to $150,000 in fines, etc. In addition, if an officer asks to administer a field sobriety test (including breathalyzer or other) and you refuse, you will be arrested and automatically lose your license for 1 year.

My take on this - there is only so much you can do before you start to take away everyone's freedom. And ultimately, God has given us our agency. Some choose to use that agency wisely and make good choices, others do not. We cannot force others to adhere to our beliefs, we cannot force someone to drink responsibly, nor can we force them to not drink and drive. We can administer consequences if they are caught doing so, for the safety of the general public. Keep in mind, it was Satan's plan to take away our agency so that we would not make mistakes. Making choices is part of life. We must have agency so that we can learn and grow. Some make foolish choices and unfortunately their choices may have disastrous effects on others, as evidenced by the extremely high number of alcohol-related deaths each year. Ultimately, we all have to live with the consequences of our choices and actions. We can't just take everyone's agency away.

What Sasha is suggesting isn't taking anyone's freedom away. Anyone can still consume alcohol, it's just much more difficult. His suggestion isn't any different than a driver's license. Prove you can drive/drink responsibly and you can continue. Just because something is allowed now doesn't make it a right, and just because someone suggests changing it doesn't mean they are against freedom or agency. Most importantly, when talking about drinking, who's freedom is more important: the drunk driver, or the person in the other car? Granted - the drunk driver is breaking the law, but the first beer was legal, so was the second, and probably the third, but the judgment is clouded and as far as the drinker knows, he's not any more impaired than when he started and isn't breaking any laws.

God gave us our agency, but he also has laws and consequences. Suggesting some structure to laws isn't being like Satan - that argument has been used over and over against religious people. This issue isn't necessarily about religious beliefs and just because someone is religious doesn't make every argument based on religious beliefs, nor does it make their argument any less valid.

I didn't mean to say that drinking alcohol was a right, nor that there shouldn't be additonal structure around drinking. After all, for many other such activities, as has already been pointed out, one must obtain a license. I do have to say though, I find it would be incredibly hard to enforce. All a drinker without a "license" would have to do is to ask a friend to buy the alcohol for him/her. Ah well, I jumped into the conversation late, and did a poor job of making my point. That's what happens when I try and respond to something late in the evening . . .

Why not just reinstate prohibition if you think that drinking alcohol is such a bad thing...yeah that worked out great and led to a much better society. As Lucia indicated, over-regulation can lead to driving actions underground/blackmarketing. How much mob violation was related to the prohibition of alcohol as compared to drinking related deaths at the time.

Your assumption is that all people who drink have a tendency to be drunks, and therefore may drive and kill/hurt someone. So, if you meet a white guy who is has racial tendancies, does that make all white guys redneck bigots?

I too know what I am talking about and most if not all of the people with whom I share a drink do so responsibly. It is already illegal to drive under the influence, but making regulation IF I can have a drink to therefore KEEP me from driving is not a practical step to take. States are currently making laws to keep people from texting while driving, do you therefore suggest you must have a license to own a cell phone?

No, you shouldn't need a license to own a cell phone. The license you need is a driver's license, and if you abuse that 'right', say, by texting while driving, it wouldn't seem extreme to remove some of your driving privileges. Texting isn't dangerous, even if you're irresponsible about it, you're only going to embarrass yourself or offend someone. Driving isn't dangerous, but driving while distracted (irresponsibly) is. Drinking (responsibly) doesn't harm any one, but drinking irresponsibly may.

My point exactly. Therefore, how would requiring a license to purchase alcohol rectify the DUI problem? It wouldn't.

Jeff - I would not be opposed to having a background check before receiving a cell phone. If you have a prior traffic violation related to the use of a cell phone, there will be a waiting period before you can use one. You just need a well-implemented database that ties your SSN to traffic violations. Then it is just one query - will cost next to nothing, and will make people think twice before they text while driving.

Regarding my proposed system - you already have to present an ID when buying alcohol anyway. The only thing you would have to do different is a) submit a one-time application online b) print a strip and attach it to the back of your driver's license. That and do not DUI, beat people up when drunk, or apply for welfare. If you are a true responsible drinker, then nothing changes for you except some minor one-time inconvenience. However, for you and everybody else who either drinks responsibly or does not drink at all this would translate into an annual tax credit of about $1K (rough estimate). Would you be willing to do it on those terms?

Rachelle - I am not going to encourage my child to play a game that is to him of secondary importance if he is concerned about the risk of injury. If he had invested a lot of time into soccer, really looked forward to becoming a soccer star, and were showing some serious talent, we would have a talk about perseverance. As far as supporting the team, the games are rather informal. Nobody except coaches, players, and some parents keeps a score, and it is never officially recorded or reported. There is no championship to be won, or anything like that.

jtshad - How does "my point exactly" apply? If that was your point, why doesn't anything that you've written resemble the comments preceeding "my point exactly"? The way I see this, it about "irresponsibility" harming others lives, physically. DUI's are indicators that someone isn't acting responsibly after drinking. Most people who drive drive responsibly, but we still have a driver's license program to protect everyone... Whether or not it's worth the cost to implement it or not, well, I don't know.

You indicated that the driver's license is the regualtion that controls the "privileges" for driving, which is correct. Licensing alcohol purchase makes no more sense than licensing cell phones to stop irresponsible driving. If someone has acted irresponsibly and has been convicted of a DUI, take away their driving privileges, don't regulate other's who responsibly partaker of a beer.

wow what a vigorous debate. It's too bad that Sasha is not king of the U.S.A., nor is policy created on this blog.

In any case, thank goodness for home-brewing!

jtshad - I see. I guess the problem to me isn't a driving problem (nor is it a drinking problem). It's an impairment problem. How do you regulate someone who is impaired? If they weren't impaired when they started whatever got them impaired (drugs, alcohol, being awake, working too hard, bad luck, or whatever) then you shouldn't assume that they will automatically become impaired by doing it and shouldn't need to regulate it. Unless a very high percentage of people doing the same activity do become impaired - certain drugs and workaholics (clearly not in their right mind.)

Actually I see some benefits in taking away the alcohol purchase license and allowing the person to keep the driver's license if convicted of DUI. I am thinking of somebody living near poverty level - a realistic scenario. He has a job that does not pay very much to begin with, and he is wasting a lot of money on alcohol on top of it already. You take away his driver's license, and he now has a difficult time getting to work. This will likely push him over the limit, and he would either quit his job or be fired. Now he is on welfare. His choice you may say, but unfortunately our taxes to pay for it. You help him restrict his alcohol consumption by making it difficult, but let him get to work. He has been punished, his capability to offend has been restricted, and he is still working, and not drawing welfare.

Regarding how common it is to have a DUI. I lived in 4 places in Provo in the last 11 years. In 2 of them I had a neighbor within 0.1 mile radius who had revealed to me the fact that he had a DUI conviction. The other two places - in the first I lived only a few months and had not taken the time to get to know my neighbors. The second was BYU married housing. Random luck? I doubt it.

I wonder what would have happened after Sept. 11 if President Bush had said - "This has been a minor nuisance compared to some other problems we are having in this country. We will not go to war until we have cut alcohol related deaths in half."

I really didn't want to get in on this one but I have to say, OH MY!!! If the drunks want to get alcohol, they'll find a way. I was a wild teenager that did way too much drinking under age and I had NO problem getting alcohol when I wanted it. It is like Paul said, home brewing is an option along with other options. Taking away someones ability to purchase alcohol will not fix the problem. Educating is the only solution along with stricter jail time and probation. If it isn't alcohol, it could be prescription and over-the-counter meds. I don't know about others but 1 Benedryl (for allergies) knocks me out. They have restricted some OTC prescriptions but everyone reacts differently to things. I know people that get loopy from Ibuprofin. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Michelle:

I consider restricting access as part of education. For example, what if I said just because my children could with some effort if they really wanted to obtain marijuana, to spare them the effort and to avoid violating their right to choose I'd better store some at the house? I'll still teach them it is bad, but I'll have some at the house just in case. After all, then they do not have to go and risk their lives to get it - who knows what the drug dealer might do to them if they do not have enough money to pay, etc.

How effective will my teaching be then?

Government regulation and taking away ALL people's liberties does not make a person or people in general responsible and is not a sustitute for education and counseling if someone has a problem.

So, in your mind it is like this:

Alcohol consumption = welfare and welfare = alcohol consumption? You have just alienated many good folks who like to drive and many hard working folks on welfare who do not drink or abuse alcohol.

I agree Sasha. I was raised in an LDS home and I am now actively LDS and don't drink but what I am saying is it isn't hard for people to get alcohol and it would take more than just restricting purchase. They would have many other ways to obtain it. I guess my point is, as long as alcohol is legal period, really anyone has access to it, whether or not they are of age or have a license or whatever. It wouldn't be as simple as a permit to buy it.

Sasha,

While I wouldn't oppose to restricting access to alcohol, it doesn't seem like it would fix the current problems. In Argentina pretty much anyone can buy alcohol. Since I was six years old, my dad would give me or my sisters money to go to the supermarket to get him a bottle of wine with the milk and bread for the day. None of us has developed any problems with alcohol, and Argentina doesn't have more or less problems with drunk driving than the U.S., even though our laws are a lot less strict - I may be wrong in believing that part of it is because it's readily available and therefore not something you are curious about when you're young or something to do to "rebel" from society when you're growing up...

Jeff, I do think that Sasha is onto something bringing up the welfare issue... seeing people pay for real food at the supermarket with food stamps (that we pay for with our taxes) and then go next door to get alcoholic drinks or cigarettes (or any other non-necessary item for that matter) with the little cash they've got does unnerve me...

Still, more government regulation can hardly be a solution to any of these issues.

I think Sasha is just carrying on this conversation to try and retake the Longest Thread award from Lybi... :)

As for me, I'm just smiling and laughing at how energetic everyone is. Everyone has a different opinion.

But assuming that alcohol is the root of the welfare issue in the US is not founded either. Is it any less bothersome to see that same person loading up the grocery cart (which is paid for with food stamps) with boxes of Twinkies and have no more nutritional value or "necessity" than a $2 bottle of wine?

I personally know people who live near/at the welfare level that don't have an alcohol problem as the reason, but instead have had other issue or factors in life that have them in their current situation. Alcohol is not the root of evil and suffering in the world. Other areas of our planet, such as Argentina as you mention, don't blame alcohol for the ills of their society. And still others don't allow alcohol consumption and still have the same problems brought up here.

Good point.

Maybe it's because I live in DC and see every day how ridiculously big the government is... but regulating alcohol more would be just as crazy as trying to further regulate what people can buy with food stamps, or whether you can listen to music or use your GPS system while you drive... it has to stop somewhere!

There's a quote by Ezra Taft Benson that I've always liked that I think applies to this nice little lively debate.

“The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”

Amen Tom. Enough said.

Let's start with some data:

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k5nsduh/2k5Results.htm

Some interesting quotes:

"In 2005, an estimated 13.0 percent of persons aged 12 or older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year"

"Slightly more than half of Americans aged 12 or older reported being current drinkers of alcohol in the 2005 survey (51.8 percent)."

So in other words, about 1 out of 4 people who drink at least once a month (survey definition of "current drinker") will at least once a year drive under the influence. So we are not talking about one bad apple here and there.

Changing direction - Tom, I love President Benson's quote. However, we cannot just sit on our hands and hope Christ will take the slums out of the people that cause social problems. Something needs to be done.

Changing direction again - Jeff, I know a lot of people who do not abuse alcohol and receive government welfare too. There are legitimate cases for that. But unfortunately there is a mentality that "well, if it is available and I qualify I should use it", rather than "I will work three jobs if I have to before I go to the government for help." That would be another $1K in taxes (or so), a different non-alcohol related problem.

Another change of direction. Lucia - my knowledge of Argentina is rather limited. I do know, however, that the country had a serious economic crisis fairly recently, and that poverty is quite common. I also do know that people usually immigrate from Argentina to the US, not the other way around. People usually migrate in the direction of reduced social problems and increased opportunity - any thoughts?

Sasha,

There is no doubt that the U.S. provides more economic opportunity than Argentina, and there's no welfare benefits provided by the government there either. Although I doubt that Argentina has reliable data on per capita alcohol consumption, I'd be surprised if it was larger than in the U.S. It'd be interesting to see if there is a correlation between alcohol consumption/availability/regulations and poverty/economic opportunity... I'll see what I can find - love a challenge!

I just have one think to say..re: Jon's last comment. You know Sasha way too well!!

As a police officer of 8 years I have the following comment:

I feel everything that should be done regarding the law should be done with moderation and common sense.

1. There people who drink alcohol and do it responsibly.

2. There are some people who don't.

I propose that we keep the current law as is but add restrictions to those who have broken the law regarding alcohol in the past. For example if I drink and stay in my home and don't disturb anyone I should have a right to do that without a license. Being 21 is the current age of responsibility.

If people failed to abide by the laws that are in place then tougher restrictions should be placed on irresponsible people. That individual could be issued a special license or have special license restrictions(which are already in place).

There are current laws on the Utah Criminal Code which are awesome but are rarely used for alcohol restricted persons.

Lets use what we have on the books first before we impose on others regulations that may not be needed.

Desi L.

Scary, isn't it, Sarah.

One note- I don't know anyone who has gotten a DUI or is on welfare. Maybe I just don't want to know and prefer to think the best of everyone.

Sasha, how much of your dislike of alcohol comes from growing up in Russia (which is well known for alcohol issues)?

Okay..my comment last night was night my real comment (yes it is scary Jon..but true...Sasha really isn't too hard to figure)

I have an annoying habit of trying to agree with everyone so here goes...

I agree with what Sasha is saying because it is true that regulating alcohol consumption with a license would help achieve the desired outcome in some people who may drink irresponsibly but may be deterred in doing so if it was illegal.

I also agree that people there are some people who will try and get it even if it is illegal.

On the moral side of it, I think that it is in a way as Tom put it," trying to take a person out of the slums." In fact I brought up that very point with Sasha as we were dozing off last night. I wondered if some rules actually change a person's nature the way the gospel can change a man's nature.

I will contribute towards the cause of beating the all-time record of comments.

Jon, you may not know anyone who is on welfare because of alcohol, or has gotten a DUI (that's because they hide it), but you must know people who have suffered the consequences of alcohol abusers. I personally know 3 people who were killed by drunk drivers. Killed. They are just as dead as if it had been a terrorist attack--but with much less press/concern from the government. I also know people who were injured by drunk drivers, and people who were abused by drunk people etc.

Alcohol is a very dangerous drug and is harmful to our society. The laws SHOULD be tougher, more serious. I can't really see a alcohol license working out, just because of the difficulty of enforcing. But the consequences for DUI should be MUCH MUCH stiffer: lower the legal blood limit, slap those people in jail and never let 'em drive again! Take away their license to DRIVE!

Go Cubs!

Go Brewers!

Chad, Paul - you both have it wrong go "DODGERS" my favorite team. Although it wouldn't be bad if Cubs broke the 100 year curse.

Go Dodgers!! Dodgers/REd Sox World Series, here it comes!!!!

Go Broncos!

Go San Lorenzo de Almagro!!! :)

Finally, something I'm smart enough to comment on.

Go Broncos!

Go Cougars!

Go Cubs. I wonder what the late Cubs announcer Harry Carry's thoughts are on alcohol use. I think he arrived at the game drunk.

Go Fast Running Bloggers!

No one else is rooting for the Brewers? Is that because their alcohol-related mascot? Go Packers, while I'm at. Sausage goes well with beer.

Actually Paul, my sister lives in Milwaukee, so I guess I can root for the Brewers. When we were out visiting her this summer I had a butter burger, talk about something that needs regulating. Anyway, I'm glad to see we've got Sasha's going for the Longest Thread Title.

hello...hello..is this on?

While were off the alcohol thing go COWBOYS! But TO be quiet and let Romo throw.

I love polish sausage while watching sports and nachos.

Go Rythmic Ballet Athletes!!

Ahem...

Jon - I've seen enough to not want to ever try it. I've grown up with a repeatedly incarnated image of a scary looking guy walking along the graph of y=sin(x) as my mom would describe it, signing, swearing, kicking things around, etc. My class consisted mostly of kids from the two types of families. Type A had the father already gone, usually due to drinking. Type B had a father that was drinking. A two-parent home with a sober non-abusive father was an exception, I can only think of a couple.

My neighbor DUI awareness has come up mostly as a result of serving in the Church. Those were not the type of people I would have spent a lot of time with naturally. Without an external push you tend establish friendships with people like yourself, and thus could be very unaware of other social groups. And, as Lybi pointed out, people do not put up "I've been convicted of DUI" sign in their front yard.

Desi L/Ali - nice to hear from somebody with experience in the area. How would it work to impose a restriction on an irresponsible drinker? How will the clerk at the store know to deny the purchase when he is trying to buy alcohol?

Lybi - I think if somebody gets caught DUI we should punish him by keeping him from drinking rather than from driving. Attack the root of the problem. As far as the ability to enforce, it is arguable which one is more difficult. Revoking the driver's license will not keep a determined or just desperate offender from driving his car. But in any case, with some creativity you can always find a way to effectively enforce a law as long as you care to enforce it more than the offender cares to get around the enforcement. "Care" is the key.

Certain restrictions can currently be placed on driver licenses. For example, when someone is caught drinking and driving their driver license is taken and they are given a provisional license until they attend a hearing with the Driver's license division. It would not take much effort to have restrictions placed on the driver's license when they get it back. Every time that person gets pulled over, there is a certain code on their license that states DUI arrests and convictions.

Now everyone above the age of 21 has the right to purchase alcohol. To prohibit someone from purchasing alcohol will do very little. In fact it could create a black market of sorts.

I do want to say Sasha that your point is valid but very difficult to implement without taking away peoples rights to purchase alcohol legally. I know that sounds weird but an alcoholic will get his alcohol no matter what.

Great topic! Its cool to see citizens of our wonderful country be concerned about a serious topic like this.

Desi L.

Come on guys...just a few more comments to make the all time high!!

Jon- you really don't know anyone on welfare? I guess Sasha and I have known several because we are always trying to get to know our neighbors and since we've never lived in a fancy neighborhood we often have neighbors on welfare.

I think what started this whole discussion was when Sasha and I noticed how although our neighbors are being kicked out of their apartment for not paying rent and seem to have no resources right now they still find a way to buy beer and cigarettes. Where there's a will there's a way I guess.

Ok, Sarah, last one before I go to sleep, just for you!

Harder penalties for offenders, even for first-time offenders, like not allowing them to purchase alcohol ever, or not allowing them to drive EVER, would be perfectly fine by me! Asking people to have a license to drink BEFORE even knowing if they're responsible or not is a different story. Sasha's data even indicates that the majority of people, and the majority of people who drink, don't drive drunk. So it would be very cumbersome and expensive to screen all people who want to purchase alcohol; I don't even know how you would make that decision either... And with how easy it would be to get around it, it just doesn't seem to make much sense.

Good night bloggers!

Desi - I still do not understand how you would keep a DUI offender from purchasing alcohol with the current laws. When they ID you, do they check if your driver's license has a DUI conviction mark?

It seems to me if we wanted to restrict a DUI offender it would be easier to implement a system that keeps him away from alcohol than from a car. You can take away his license, but can you take away his car? Even if you did, you could not take away his spouse's car, and if he needs to get somewhere he will likely take the risk of driving without a license without even thinking twice.

With the alcohol, if you ran the background check when he purchases it at least he would not be able to get it from a store without some assistance from a friend with a clean background. And if buying alcohol for a DUI offender was a crime as well, then whoever buys it for him would have to think twice. This could help some people I've met that described to me their struggles trying to overcome the addiction. They go through alternating periods of being in control and feeling overwhelmed by the addiction. When the craving strikes, if obtaining alcohol is as easy as a drive to the store, they will cave for sure. If it means having to do more than that, the needed extra time and effort might bring them to their senses.

Also from the point of view of freedom and rights. The Declaration of Independence states that the inalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. In that spirit, when punishing an individual for an offense, we want to minimize the restriction of those liberties to the least extent needed and in a way that will enable him and others to enjoy those liberties in the future. Being unable to drive makes it difficult to get to work, library, sports activities, AA meetings, and other places where the offender will have a chance to learn to do better. When we take that away, in my opinion, this punishment has a huge side effect of impeding the offender's ability to not offend again.

Being unable to drink only helps him practice controlling the cravings and experience the clarity of the mind unclouded by the alcohol. I say focus on keeping him away from the booze, not from the driving.

Lucia - 1 out of 4 is not a negligible minority.

This discussion lends credence to the Sasha Santa or Sasha Grinch discussion on the forum (in good fun): :)

This discussion lends credence to the Sasha Santa or Sasha Grinch discussion on the forum (in good fun): :)

http://fastrunningblog.com/forum/index.php/topic,657.msg6377.html#msg6377

Since this has so many comments anyway- Sasha, I think you should change your blog photo to the one posted at the top. The one on your blog does not look like you. The Ogden Marathon one, where it looks like you are flying, is a good one too.

Happy debating guys!!!

I have heard Sasha's answers to common questions so many times, that I can answer them for him. In fact, Sasha, if you want to take a week off from the blog, I feel that I can be an adequate substitute for you. Proxy-Sasha or something.

Anyway, Sasha will not remove his current blog photo until he can recreate the fury and raw emotional and physical energy that he had when the current photo was taken (TOU - 2003). He is quite adamant on the subject. Thank you for posting, please come again.

Marion:

I do not care about the flying part. I did not win Ogden, and I did not run my best race. I do not even care that I am wearing the wrong uniform in the picture. It was a breakthrough race. I after almost two years of disappointments and challenges I found a solution to get to the new level. I PR'ed by over five and a half minutes. I won the race by almost 7 minutes in spite of the $1K prize for first. I was with the trooper from start to finish, and he is in the picture. I will replace it only if I run a better quality time breaking the tape, and with a trooper in the background.

hmmm. I liked my answer better.

The photo in your blog looks good and your determined so why change it. It's something that inspired you and motivates you to run that way again every time you see it I'm sure.

My question is you look a lot lighter then (your still skinny now), but how much did you weight in that photo?

I guess that is what makes girls different from boys :) I figured there had to be some sentiment attached to the picture. Just had to unleash the peanut gallery's opinion :D

Marion, I was thinking the same thing - with all due respect to Sarah, Sasha looks quite fine in the new photos - just a healthy compliment :)

Back to the debate: Sasha, i'm not sure where you get the 1 out of 4 figure... the website says 13% of people 12 years old or older drive under the influence once a year... that's not 1 in 4.

Moreover, the fact that drinking is so common among younger people (50% of kids 18 to 21) means that even though there are laws and regulations, they are not being enforced and kids are finding ways to get alcohol anyway. Which I think reinforces the point that more regulation on who is allowed to drink or not is not effective.

If you didn't note it on the discussion forum, perhaps the Top of Utah photo is not used because of the uncanny resemblance. (All in good fun.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30864837@N08/2906933361/

Ah ha! I just don't think Sasha (or maybe Sarah) doesn't want anyone to know how good looking he is!

To really show how good looking Sasha is we'd have to post a close-up of his gorgeous legs!!

Lucia - 1 of 4 drinkers drives drunk at least once a year. About 1 out of 8 of everybody drives drunk at least once a year. In other words, if you drink at least once a month, there is a 25% chance that you will drive drunk at least once a year. According to this article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-20-drunk-driving_N.htm

there were 13,470 DUI deaths in in 2006. That is September 11th times 4, and we get that annually. Not surprising considering the amount of drunk driving we do as a nation.

Regarding the effectiveness of enforcement. I think it is wrong to abandon a law just because it is difficult to enforce. If a law is right, we should do what it takes to enforce it, and not make excuses. Of course, in order for that to happen, we would need to believe that there is such as thing as an absolute right and absolute wrong, but that is a different story.

A properly enforced law will not be broken, and I doubt the underage drinking law is being enforced properly. Question for Desi and other police officers - when you notice a drunk teenager, do you even do anything if he is just drunk and not causing trouble otherwise? If you do, how hard do you question him to find out where he got the alcohol from? If the source comes to your attention, do you go after every offender? What is the punishment for the teenager and the guy that gave him the alcohol when they get busted? Is the punishment serious enough to discourage the repeat offense?

Sasha

If you are under the age of 21 ANY alcohol within your system puts you in violation of the law. The same law applies for possession of alcohol. We try to obtain as much information about how and where they got the alcohol and charge people criminally if we can. If they are outside our jurisdiction then we refer it to that agency. Class B misdemeanor for illegal possession of alcohol. Class A for illegal distribution unless its on a larger scale. The fines are high. I've seen a kid get 3 months in jail for his second offense by a judge. The judge sets the sentence.

Please keep in mind that a police officer could arrest every DUI and every illegal consumption but the judge determines the sentences and the severity of the violation. So please vote in judges who take this stuff very seriously.

Desi L.

I think I missed the discussion, but I will add my comment anyway.

There is really no difference between what Sasha is suggesting and what is already being done with gun control laws. That vast majority of drinkers and gun owners are law abiding people. However, everyone must get a license to own a gun. Criminals find ways around the law, but we still enforce it because it clearly has positive benefits.

I think that the difference is that a minority of people are gun owners and a large majrity of people drink. I assume that if drinkers ever become a minority then they will be picked on, just like smokers are now.

Wow, I thought this was a running blog...

Ok, I do not want my discussion to lose steam now that Teena's is catching up :-)

Check out

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k5nsduh/gifs/Fig3-1.gif

Alcohol use in the 18-20 age bracket is about 51% in spite of the legal restrictions. However, once the restriction is removed, it spikes to about 67% in the 21-26 age bracket, and does not drop below 60% until 50-54 age bracket. A likely cause for the drop is that some of the heavy users in their youth never live to be that old.

So it would be fair to say that 16% of the youth do not drink just because it is illegal. The law, even though supposedly easy to break, is not completely useless.

However, you statistics show that "current use" becomes a drastically higher percentage of the total. Looking at the 3 categories, this would be the in the repsonsible drinkers category.

There's no such thing as responsible drinking. Don't kid yourself.

Burt, come on! I happen to drink responsibly and I am NOT KIDDING MYSELF!

hmm, interesting...are there actually a lot of people that agree with Burt's comment?

Sarcasm? Hopefully.

Burt - If Jeff wasn't a responsible drinker don't you think his running would suffer? I've seen him around his family, and have spend a great deal of time with him, and he's one of the most focused at intelligent guys I knew. He's created a balance in his life where not one thing is as important as another.

Your comment is using your fingers without thinking about what your typing.

Sounds like Burt could use a drink. :-)

"Sounds like Burt could use a drink. :-)

"

:)

Since stones are apparently being thrown, I wonder how many people on the blog are not responsible runners...

By the way, I second Kory's opinion of Jeff.

Kory - a lot of times running could suffer without you even knowing it. I've done a lot of things that made my running suffer that I did not realize at the time.

Yeah, the glass of wine that Deena Kastor has with dinner probably caused her foot problems. And that beer that Brian Sell has with his pizza at the Brooks-Hanson Distance Project dinners stopped him from qualifying for the Olympics...oh wait, he did qualify!

Sasha - I don't think Jeff's running suffers from drinking, because the way he handles his priorities, balance, and life is very detailed and focused.

I could say the same about my pop intake that it's killing me inside and causing my running to suffer. My pop intake with caffeine could cause me to be a chaotic driver.

I don't drink nor do I want to ever because of my beliefs and up-bringing, but my opinion is that there are people that can handle their drinking and can live a productive, successful and even competitive life.

Kory - to clarify. I've had two experiences in my racing career when I ran a good race but got beat by a runner who historically finished behind me. When that happens I always ask the runner what he did different. In both cases they attributed their success to eliminating alcohol from their diet.

I think like Paul, I can speak for Sasha..He probably means that there are some things that can "bring you down without you knowing" to maybe only a slightly lower level so slight that you may not even think it's a lower level. Maybe there is some potential a certain habit or substance is keeping you from meeting...like blogging too much may keep you from becoming that famous author you've always wanted to be...that's something to think about guys!! :) :) :) :) :) :)

Sasha - I do understand what your saying. If we could cut down on some nasty habits (those that have them) I'm sure we would see improvements. I'm not arguing with you it's a good discussion.

I should do an experiment and totally quit my pop habit to see if I see an increase in performance.

Sarah your right I'm blogging too much :-)

Jeff - there are several factors that affect your running performance. Back in the 1950s a smoker could be competitive in the Boston marathon. Once non-smokers with enough Quality X started to run marathons, a smoker now had no chance. Right now a fairly casual alcohol drinker with enough Quality X can race at a world class level, just like a casual smoker could in the 50s. My prediction, however, is that as the world class performance standard keeps getting pushed we will get to the point that even a casual drinker would not be competitive. He would now have to race guys with equal Quality X that do not drink, and he will have no advantage to compensate for the handicap.

Is there any research out there to show that a little alcohol now and then is detrimental to fitness. Doubtful.

I don't drink, but I suspect that those who do are likely willing to suffer a few seconds off of their running times to enjoy the other aspects of life. Very few runners are so dedicated that they are willing to sacrifice all the other aspects of their lived to achieve their full potential. Unless you are at a truly elite level I doubt it is worth it.

I myself will continue to enjoy my soda, red meat, cheese, extra dessert, and slightly slower marathon times.

I haven't looked but is there a study out there about soda performance gain for a runner that's stopped. I like my caffeine.

October's Runner's World says caffeine has performance benefits, as well as some others online.

Dallen, Kory:

Some of the benefit of giving up your favorite questionable substance could very well be physical, but there is another aspect. It is the general power of being able to give up a comfort. When you give up a questionable substance, even when it has zero effect on your physical parameters such as muscle power, glycogen storage, or cardiovascular capabilities you've just taught your body something very important - how to give up comfort on demand and with less hesitation. You'll be able to use it in a race when you need to go into the zone and stay there to get a faster time.

A quote I live by..."Life is too short to drink cheap beer!".

Life it too short to give up "comforts" in life just to get into the zone for a race. I don't define myself just as a runner...but as a father, husband, son, employee, friend, etc. All of these other aspects of my demand, and I enjoy partaking in, "comforts" of some sort.

I agree with Jeff - running is not that important with life. It's your relationship with God that's the most important, and then balancing your family, job and other activities after that priority.

Dallen - I don't drink pop before a race or even a day leading up to a marathon. I don't even drink pop or take caffeine before any of my training runs. I'm like Jeff I drink it at other times, because I like the taste of it. I usually will drink one for lunch and maybe two for dinner, and sometimes other times through-out the day. I love to drink it after a run.

So, according to what Sasha says, we should give up all comforts like soft beds, central home heating, and warm showers, all of which are recent inventions that make us soft.

I'm like Dallen, Kory, and Jeff- I try to do my best running, but it is only a part of my life and has to fit in the balance. If I wanted to be the best runner I could, I would quit my job, but then I would not fiscally provide for my family. I would also sleep more, but that would require less time with my family. Life is about balance and priorities.

I still think Sasha is carrying on this conversation to take the longest thread from Lybi.

The power of being able to give up a comfort not only would not interfere with being a husband, a father, a friend, or an employee, but would actually help. In fact, that is one reason I still run. When a vital task needs to be performed that requires giving up of comfort, I can call on what I practice daily in running and perform it with a lesser amount of fuss.

Didn't Jesus drink fermented grape juice?:)

Moderation is good for everyone. If it is something that is not consuming your life or all you think about than that person is not going to be a menace to society. It is those that are out of control that cause MOST of the problems. Not everyone is going to agree with your beliefs so accept them for who they are and let it go.

Jon - there is a difference. Certain comforts strengthen your body and mind, while others only weaken. In chess there is a difference between a sacrifice and a blunder. When you sacrifice, you give up a valuable piece and get something better a few moves down the road. When you make a blunder you just lose the piece. A good chess player will not stop at the sacrifice of a queen and two rooks if the end result is checkmating the opponent. But he will not give you as little as a pawn if this means nothing more than losing the piece.

Sasha, what you are saying is sacrificing a comfort for a brief period ("When a vital task needs to be performed that requires giving up of comfort"), but then it sounds as though you are asking others to permanently give it up. Big difference. I can give up a night with my family, sleep, dinner, etc to help a friend in need. But if I did that EVERY evening, then I ultimately would be failing as a father/husband.

Good example with chess. I wish life were so straightforward. Instead, it is not always possible to know which "comforts" help and which hinder and which do neither.

That is why we are asked to make the very best choices we can, and NOT judge others.

I hesitate to give my 2 cents...but here it goes...In the book of Proverbs (wisdom) it says something about a little wine being good for the stomach. Jesus himself, according to New Testament Scripture, actually turned water into wine (scholars believe it would have been 70-80% more diluted than today, but nevertheless). At the same time, Scripture says "Don't get drunk on wine which leads to debauchery." Personally, I do not drink, yet for my family it is not a moral issue. Just as strong a case might be made for folks who board an airplane (polluting the environment), drive a car (ditto + more folks are killed by cars each year than guns...and many many car accidents have nothing to do w/alchohol...so why not just jog or ride a bike? we like the convenience), or jog through Central Park or almost any part of LA county (might as well smoke a pack or two). I don't find much personal value in alcohol (although many studies do show value in moderate consumption of wine as well as dark chocolate), I do see much abuse in our culture (as there was in biblical times when Christ ate alongside the "outcasts" and "tax collectors" and "sinners"), yet I refuse to demonize those folks who do drink responsibly (and even the ones who don't). Forgive me if I sound a bit "preachy"...just couldn't resist my two cents worth. Nice discussion!

Aren't there studies that show a glass or two of wine (or beer), can have a positive effect on a persons well being, and even some cardiovascular benefits?

I wonder if the benefits of responsible/moderate consumption outweigh the detriments of this consumption when it comes to running performance...

However, if I were one of the fastest marathoners on the planet, and I were competing with all the other fastest in the world, for a million dollars, and I lost, I would not want to wonder if it was the beer that took the winning edge away.

Now I'm sure Sasha's diet and regiments have helped many people. (I loved oatmeal before you put it on your blog) :)

Sasha is a great example of consistency, discipline, and integrity. There is just one word I would not use to explain Sasha and that is Empathetic.

Its his way or the highway. (hopefully there are no drunks on the highway).

I think everyone here has valid points but there are so many ways to enjoy life.

Desi L.

Sasha..wouldn't your logic dicate you'd be stronger as a person if you gave up running? You are addicted and it is a comfort for you.

By the way, that last comment must have been from another Jon. Not Jon Allen (me). One problem with a common name. To the other Jon's, don't forget to put your blog address (i.e. jelmo, jona, etc) in the web address on comments.

I've heard that drinking a little wine everyday has certain health benefits, but not as much as just drinking grape juice for the antioxidants. Alcohol is not good for our bodies. Some people are able to drink it in small enough quantities to be able to avoid causing noticeable damage to their bodies, or lives in general. But I'm not convinced that that means it is completely without vice. There is still the influence of setting a precedent.

Do you guys believe the literature suggesting that some people have genes that make them much more vulnerable to addiction? Like if they try alcohol, they easily become an addict and almost have no choice in the matter? Well, I think I could possibly be one of those people. When I like something, I usually like it TOO much. LUCKILY LUCKILY I will never become an alcoholic or drug addict because I have never and will never try it for the very first time.

But back to the people who drink responsibly...they exist, that is true. But someone with addictive tendencies might be more likely to try alcohol, seeing that it has no detrimental effect on so-and-so. The fact that alcohol affects people differently is part of the menace. If everyone who tried it became a raging alcoholic, it would be easy to make illegal. The "responsible drinkers" make it more complicated, darn them (he he) but the fact is that the overall impact of alcohol on our society is a negative one.

And beer stinks.

Wow! Just when this topic was dying out, I pipe up with a smart alleck comment and squeeze the proverbial bellows to re-light the fire. Admittedly I made that comment to see what kind of reactions I would get, but there is a little truth to it as I'll explain.

Kory is right. I was typing without thinking, because I knew I should think my argument through before posting. I guess that's not my style. I like to light the firecracker and toss it to see what kind of damage it does first.

So....because I've never drank before, one could make the argument that I don't know what I'm talking about. That's fine but I can't believe that someone would drink alcohol for its refreshing taste and thirst quenching ability. There are plenty of other better tasting liquids out there for that. I mean, the first time you take a drink are you doing it because you're thirsty or are you just trying it? And so I would argue that if you have ever been drunk, ever, you lost the title of "responsible drinker." Don't matter if you were at home alone, out camping in the woods, or in a padded room. You got drunk. You lost control. You can now never be called a responsible drinker again. And heck, you don't even have to be drunk to be an irresponsible drinker.

Is there bias to what I'm saying because of my up bringing? Maybe, but let me tell you about a guy that only had a couple of drinks. That guy took the keys to his vehicle and went for a drive with my sister (certainly they were both irresponsible.) That guy was just buzzed enough to be distracted with the radio knob just enough to veer off the road. That guy didn't have the sense about him to not over correct getting back on that road. That guy flipped his vehicle, put my sister in a coma for a year, and has caused her permanent brain damage.

So, yes, my bias is more than just my up bringing. But hey, that's just me. Nothing you can say can convince me that there is such a thing as responsible drinking now. And to use the vernacular of the peasantry, "Don't be hating."

Dave:

Perhaps you may find a brief explanation of the foundation of the LDS belief of no alcohol helpful.

First, we accept the Bible as the word of God to the extent that it is translated correctly. The Bible is a set of revelations received and recorded by the Hebrew prophets. We believe those to be correct, however, we also believe that God continues to speak to man through prophets. Over the the history of mankind there have been periods of relative righteousness when God called prophets, followed by their rejection by the people which resulted in withdrawal of the prophets and a period of subsequent apostasy. We believe that the last period of apostasy lasted from the last Biblical revelation until 1820 when God called a prophet again. His name was Joseph Smith.

Thus, the words of modern day prophets carry the same authority, and even greater relevance than the prophets of old. Just like the words of Paul were more relevant for the early Christians than the words of Moses, and the words of Moses carried more relevance for his people than the words of Adam, the words of modern day prophets carry more relevance for us right now.

Our opposition to alcohol is based on a modern day revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1833 known as the Word of Wisdom. The full text of the revelation is available at

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/89

I find it interesting that is was prefaced with:

"In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation"

That coupled with the fact that the Bible never explicitly prohibits moderate use of alcohol. Interestingly enough, the Book of Mormon (which covers the period from 600 BC to 400 AD) never does so either, and there is one place (Alma 55:32) that suggests that the Nephites, a nation that was following the commandments of God, did not have the Word of Wisdom the way we have it in the last days.

However, the last days are different, and we are being asked to abstain from alcohol completely by a modern day prophet. Which we accept as the will of God for mankind in the last days.

Sasha,

I have studied your religion and respect your personal convictions. No offense intended.

Not speaking for anyone, but I doubt any offense is being received. If anything, I'm afraid someone might take offense to my opposition to alcohol consumption. I would not stop being someone's friend because they drink, nor would I think any less of them. So I hope no one thinks I'm "holier than thou", but see my above response as to why I don't think anyone should drink. You're right, though. Nice discussion!

Dave:

Burt is right. It is against our religion to get offended. Brigham Young is reported to have said at one point that he who gets offended with the offense was not intended is a fool, but he who gets offended when the offense was intended is a fool twice. Recently there was a great talk in General Conference by Elder Bednar on the subject:

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-646-32,00.html

That said, not everybody even among the active members of the Church practices the principle. Which I why, I suppose, we got the talk.

Sasha,

I never sensed any offense, yet realized my biblical insight (accurate "preaching" for those within the Christian "flock") would be irrelevant to those who hold to Mormon convictions and beliefs. Although our theological convictions have fundamental differences, I appreciate the honest and friendly dialogue.

LOL!!! Oh, that's hilarious!! Against our religon! I've never heard it said like that, but I guess it's true. I'm still laughing. What makes it even funnier is that I've never met Sasha, so I picture it being said by a very serious guy with a very thick Russian accent. Tho' I gather that's not the case.

...against our relgion...whew!

Sasha can be serious but at heart he's still a goofy Russian school boy minus the accent. He speaks English better than a lot of Americans I know...think My Fair Lady only a man..he does have a distinct way of talking but it isn't Russian..just Sasha...a lot of people have thought he was from Idaho. Do they speak funny up there?

A little. Mostly they just drive funny.

Everyone is beautiful...especially long distance runners...

I know if I took one drink of alcohol it would kill me because I can't even handle a Teaspoon of NyQuil it makes me loopy.

Maybe if pop did that to me I would quit drinking it. :-)

Wow, I'm gone for 3 days and have so much to catch up with in here!

For as long as I have use of memory, my dad has enjoyed one or two glasses of wine with dinner. It was never an issue for anyone in my family, he never drove drunk or was violent to anyone. That's responsible drinking.

A big part of being a responsible drinker for me is to know when it's appropriate to drink, and how much. Responsible drinkers know when to stop, period! I don't think there's anything wrong in getting a bit tipsy if you don't have to drive, and if you stop a few hours before getting on the metro or walking home. Alcoholics don't seem to have that "switch" that tells them when to stop, and that's why it's considered a disease (though some people don't believe it, and I'm a bit skeptical of it myself...)

As long as you're not driving or behaving inappropriately in public, drinking is not that different from having too much cake once in a while, or drinking too much soda and feeling a sugar high.

Moderation is key, with drinking and with anything in life. Too much of anything can be bad. Except for love :)

Uhhh... is this on? :)

Since the alcohol-related discussion seems to be dying out and we're still a ways away from 200 comments, can we turn our attention to another, much more widely-accepted drug? I'm talking about caffeine. I believe it's frowned upon by the LDS religion, although not as strongly as alcohol (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Personally, I've always tried to stay away from it, as I've read that it has some detrimental side effects in the long run. The last issue of Runner's world has different little bits of info quoting recent studies that show caffeine can boost performance. So my thought now is to continue to avoid it most days, but maybe have a little bit of it just before a race, or have gels with caffeine?

What do you think?

Another question to ponder is, if studies show that caffeine actually boosts performance, shouldn't it be banned from competition?

Are we trying for 200? Oh boy..well I'll add a little tidbit. I've just always been put off by things that make me feel better or do better but could have bad side effects. If I'm not sure I just stay away from it all together.

The LDS church does "frown on" caffeine but it is not against our Word of Wisdom(the commandment we have to stay away from coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs). Many members of the church have chosen to not consume caffeine in soda or other drinks but I think may not read every label to make sure it's not hidden somewhere...like in chocolate....or OTC drugs. I wasn't allowed to drink caffeine drinks as a kid and still don't. I'll let Sasha answer the part about whether or not it can improve performance but I can only guess what he'll have to say about it.

Thank you, Sarah, for the clarification. I wasn't sure if the frown was on coffee or on caffeine. Just out of curiosity, does the commandment say to stay away from all tea, even decaf/herbal teas, or iced tea?

I would say caffeine does improve performance, because I take the caffeine gels on a run. But playing Devil's Advocate here, I think too much of it is bad. In reality it's considered a drug. I drink soda pop and know the issues with caffeine, but I don't drink pop for caffeine I drink it because I like the taste.

I was wondering that myself, since herbal tea is not really tea at all. And what about hot chocolate? Just curious...

Without coffee...life would have no meaning. LOL!!

I can't drink it before a run though, too acidic in my stomach.

Again I would like to reiterate: Everyone is beautiful, especially long distance runners!

I never, never, never drink soda pop before a run, just after runs or long hours in-between runs for pleasure.

herbal tea and hot chocolate although "hot drinks" are not against the word of wisdom. I think herbal tea is wonderful. We don't not drink green or black tea.

Lots of members love chocolate but we in our own family don't eat it because we feel carob is a better choice. So I make warm carob milk for my kids on a cold winter day and peppermint tea when they are sick.

I tried carob for the first time the other day, and melted it to top my homemade powerbars in substitution for chocolate. It tastes okay, but kind of funny if you're use to chocolate. Interestingly, when I compared the nutrition side-by-side, carob was way higher in calories, sugar, and sodium...and that's what made me buy it! (I need all the calories I can get, plus sodium is an electrolyte).

But I think I'll go back to chocolate sheerly for taste.

The letter of the Word of Wisdom tells us to stay away from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, caffeinated tea (herbal tea not included), and street drugs (e.g marijuana, cocaine, etc.). What I mean by the letter is that you do not get a temple recommend and cannot serve in church callings if you have been using those.

The spirit of the Word of Wisdom (meaning, the principles are taught but the details of the application are left to the individual interpretation) says we should partake of the foods that nourish our body, and stay away from foods and substances that do it harm. We are particularly advised to maintain a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and grains, and stay away from any substance that has a tendency to produce an addictive dependency. Even though I am not aware of any official statements by the Church that explicitly stated caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom, when asked by Larry King about caffeine answered: "No to caffeine, coffee and tea."

Regarding the letter vs the spirit as I defined it earlier. There are a lot of things that are taught in our church that if you fail to do you can still get a temple recommend. E.g during a temple recommend interview you are never specifically asked if you sincerely strive to control your temper, forgive those who have done you wrong, or maybe more detail specific - use profane language, or if you slack off on your prayers or scripture study. And I suppose if you told the bishop about those failing you'd still get the recommend. Unfortunately, we often slip into the mentality that because we can still go to our family weddings in the temple that must mean the bad things we do are not that bad and improvement in those areas is not urgent. And when that happens we are often rightfully so labeled as hypocrites by those outside our faith. Rightfully so because those forms of negative behavior still shut us out of the presence of God, but I suppose the hope is that if we can muster enough faith and humility to obey the required minimum (temple recommend interview standard) then maybe the Holy Ghost can get to us and help us bring the rest of our behavior to where it ought to be.

Regarding caffeine as a performance enhancer. It is already on the list of banned substances. As little as 8 cups of coffee can get you busted in a drug test.

8 cups! I can think of other things that would bust! (namely my bladder and bowels, probably my stomach too)

Well said, Alexander.

Also well said, Paul.

What kind of carob did you buy Paul? It is naturally sweeter than chocolate so usually has less sugar in it. I've never really paid attention to the sodium or calories though. I too need plenty of calories as I have been pregnant or nursing now for 10 years straight! I think either you love chocolate or you love chocolate. I don't think there really is a substitution for it but we just decided it would be easier to avoid a lot of junk food if we made a general no chocolate rule for the kids.

I bought it from the bulk health food section at Smiths. When I say "sugar", I mean all sugars (fructose, glucose, sucrose, etc.). Not necessarily "added sugar". The carob is almost too sweet for me, but then again I prefer organic dark chocolate over milk chocolate. Fewer things added to it, and a little bitter. The same goes for my coffee: the blacker the better.

I know what you mean...I call whatever sweetner I use sugar half the time, even if it isn't technically. Well bravo on trying something new. I've actually eaten carob for so long now that although I once loved chocolate I don't like the taste as much and prefer carob.

Tried to read every comment. Don't like computer reading much. But here goes: I have been personally affected by irresponsible drinking of alcohol. One in 1982 when my father and sister were killed in a car accident by an eighteen year old girl drunk on a Friday at 530pm. My dad was picking my sister up from a friends house just three miles away from our house in New Hampshire. Talk about a life changing event. My mom remarried a man addicted to alocohol (although as a straight teenager I didn't realize the extent of his controlling behavior/abuse and its relation to his liquor consumption that was considered responsible, I just thought he was mean). Then a few weeks after kicking my older brother out of the house for smoking an officer knocks on our door in the early morning hours of November 5th, 1985. I in my room hear horrific screams from my mother and afraid to go downstairs to find my stepfather trying to console my mother after learning that her son was just killed in a car accident. His best friend had drove him home drunk from a party. You can see where my sister and I were headed in this situation. We spiraled downward the next few years, while I tried to keep straight A's, I'm okay look on my face and keep up with ski team, field hockey and track. I couldn't do it and went through years of depression. Guess where I ended up? BYU. As a non-member from the East. Miracles haven't ceased. That is for sure. My sister, mom and I are now active in the church. The only good out of alcohol in my life came from God when he brought me out here to Utah. My stepfather still drinks "responsibly" my entire family think they drink "responsibly". Personally I think it is a crutch. A way to distort reality. If you have kids that drink they aren't getting enough attention. If you are drinking it can't be for the taste. I have tasted many beers, and wines growing up. One taste, that's all to know it not something to be desired. Just like bitter medicine going down. Take lortab for instance. You get to swallow it but because some people can't control their need for the drug they would gladly chew the pill just to get it. Most bodies respond negatively to taste but some just want the end result and would do anything to get it. Have you ever been to a teenage party? They think they are so cool, yet noone can stand by themselves. They thrive on the attention of others. The pride of the world as I see it. Get off the horse and do something good. Drinking is a way to escape. Sure running helps you escape. But lets get real it only costs us a pair of running shoes ever so often and doesn't hurt anyone unless you run and never talk (communicate). It helps the economy (shoe stores, doctor visits for injuries, clothing stores), this is positive. It has also helped many an addict to overcome their addictions by changing to running. I love those stories in the Runners' World. Alcohol is an excuse to try to be someone else. I can go on and on about my history at my high school with drugs and alcohol and dealing with once good friends who were different after they chose to drink. I chose not to. I hope others that drink and say they do responsibly watch themselves (this is not to offend other bloggers).

Julie: I am so sorry about everything you've gone through. Hard to express with words how deeply sad and horrified I feel about your family's story. I read your blog profile too and you are such a strong person and a great runner. Please don't think that by responding here I'm trying by any means to disregard what you wrote or offend you in any way.

It appears that you're referring to underage drinkers causing the accidents in those occasions. Underage drinking is already illegal, and part of the discussion here is in regards to whether we need more laws/regulations for alcohol purchases. The laws already in place didn't stop those teenagers from drinking and driving evidently, and they don't stop teenagers from drinking too much at parties either. This seems to reinforce the idea that more laws prohibiting/regulating the sale of alcohol are not the best way to avoid incidents/irresponsible drinking. Maybe more/better education, less advertising that promotes drinking as being "cool" (as they already regulate cigarette advertising) would be a best way to approach things.

I also don't believe someone with an alcoholism problem would quit drinking if he was banned from purchasing alcohol. Illegal drugs are already banned, and addicts still manage to get them somehow.

Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone or disregard anyone's opinion and find this discussion extremely valuable.

Julie, I'm also glad that you found peace in your life now and thank you so much for sharing your struggles, I think it helps us put things in perspective better.

Respectfully,

Lucia

Julie - thanks for sharing your thoughts. Alcohol problem is often very private and well hidden. Those who have it themselves are often ashamed to admit they do. Their family members who suffer the consequences as well do not post a sign in the front yard either. So we think there is no problem. This reminds me of the words of Alexander Pope:

"Vice is a monster so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

Another point to ponder. Suppose you are able to drink without ever losing control. You have a friend that respects you a lot that does not have that ability, does not currently drink, and is contemplating his first drink. Because he sees that you are able to handle life without problems, he decides to go ahead. After that he develops a dependency. Could you then be considered a truly responsible drinker?

That is a very good quote, Sasha.

About your point though, one person cannot be held responsible for other person's actions! If a friend who admires you decides to run a marathon because of you and during running gets permanently injured, does that mean you are responsible for that? Of course not, even if he/she followed a training plan that you recommended or that you follow to the T. We are each responsible for our own actions and to know our own limitations.

Although "responsible drinking" is not a moral concern from my personal and religious convictions, I have chosen not to drink as a pastor due to a point Sasha just made. I would hate to be a "stumbling block" to somebody else. My family has abstained based on that one particalar concern (I also do a ton of marriage counselling that is so often related to alcohol abuse). At the same time, I am cautious not to demonize the person who has an occasional drink or a glass of wine each day (not saying any of you have). Your stories and insights are all points to be valued and considered...and my heart definitely goes out to many of you who's lives have been affected by it's abuse.

I too realize that there has been suffering from the iappropriate actions of those who drink and sympathize with your loss. But there has been suffering and loss due to the use of ladders, should we therefore villify the use of them for elevated work?

But I have to agree with Lucia. This same argument can be made of anyone who makes a poor decision while trying to follow in the footsteps of another, an individual is responsible for their actions.

Again, the statements being made on over regulating the choices and actions of others based on the consequences of someone else making/taking illegal actions in not what our demoncracy is based upon.

Also, do not presume to tell me what I can/should/do enjoy. I happen to like the taste of beer. I don't like the taste of black licorice, so doesn't that mean that it is "not something to be desired" by everyone? Overeating is way to "escape" do we therefore require everyone to be on a healthy diet?

amen...I'll continue to respect a Morman or any other religion that prohibits it's use, yet we live in a country that not only gives freedom of religion, but tolerates those with different moral convictions and values. And I still think that any discussion looking to ban alchohol would have to seriously consider a ban of all use of vehicles. Irresponsible drivers are killing folks every day...cell phone abuse, alchohol, poor coordination, folks too old to drive, poorly lit roads, inexperienced teenagers, etc. I'm just not reading about drunk bicycle riders or joggers killing folks (ok, I realize someone will find an example, but it's the exception).

Lucia:

We are, of course, ultimately responsible for our own actions. However, this does not absolve us from a moral responsibility of helping those around us make better choices. We do not live in each in his own shell, we interact, and there is not a single thing we can do that would not impact others in some way, positive or negative. Eventually the consequences come back to us individually, again either positive or negative.

One simple example is when your neighbor's house is on fire. If you neglect your moral responsibility to do something to help, aside from the moral issues, your inaction could result in the fire spreading to your own house. In this case the consequences of complacency are obvious, so it rarely happens that we would let our neighbor's house burn. But figuratively speaking, in many other instances we let our neighbor's house burn all the time because the consequences are not as immediate, and thus not as apparent.

Dave:

To what extent do you think we should tolerate in the law a diversity in the moral values?

My opinion - what we end up with in the law is simply the opinion of the influential majority on which forms of negative or immoral behavior they are willing to tolerate. It has less to do with how harmful that behavior is to the society than with the fact whether the influential majority wants to have a legal option to participate in that behavior. Similar to the way most people eat - the choice more often than not is based on taste and convenience rather than on whether it is good for the body.

One example - theft vs adultery. Under the law of Moses the penalty of adultery was death by being stoned. The penalty for theft was to restore what you have stolen in some greater proportion. Back in those times adultery was regarded as a much more serious offense than any form of property crime. As societies have become more materialistic, they began to value property more, and chastity less. I remember reading a newspaper article around 1983 that reported a prominent store manager in Moscow being executed for a serious property crime. I think the worst form of trouble you could get into for adultery in the Soviet Union was being expelled from the Communist Party for "immoral conduct".

In the US, things are not fundamentally different. Theft is considered a crime, and can result in a jail term. Adultery is still a crime on the books, but it is never enforced.

Sasha,

Absolutely agree that we have a responsibility for helping our fellow human beings - but there is a limit to it, and at some point, we each make our own decisions and have to be responsible for our actions - otherwise we'd live in a world where people can successfully sue the government for allowing McDonalds to exist, and make people fat.

Using your fire example, of course we are responsible for helping a neighbor whose house is on fire (that would be helping a neighbor who is an alcoholic by, for example, not drinking in front of them if you know of their problem). Another thing would be not to have any candles/matches in your house, because you don't know if your neighbor can handle turning on a candle or match without setting their house on fire...

Another analogy - should you not have any peanuts in your house just in case your neighbor is allergic to peanuts? Of course that doesn't make sense - it's your neighbor's responsibility to handle candles responsibly and stay away from peanuts, not yours.

Lucia:

I believe you should help any time you can and every time do your very honest best. You have to remember that at the end of your life you will stand accountable before God for your actions and both He and you will know if what you did was your true honest best. Just like I would not want a can of beer to possibly keep me from winning an important race, I would not want the same can of beer to help push my friend into a gutter, and then stand before God at the end of things with a perfect knowledge that had I denied myself the pleasure my friend would have been somewhere else.

Dave:

You used the word "demonize" a few times, and that got me thinking as too possibly why you would use the term in the context of the discussion. I noticed that in contrast with the Russian culture and the little bit of the Latino culture that I have observed Americans are very sensitive to being told that they are wrong, especially when the issue has something to do with individual behavior and discipline and the implication is that some deeply ingrained habits need to change. It is almost as bad for an American to be told he is wrong as it is for a Russian to be expected to bring something if you are inviting him for dinner.

Are you saying Russians don't mind if they are told they are wrong? I thought it was just human nature in general to take the offensive.

Sasha,

Since I'm not sure I believe in an after-life, I believe in doing your true honest best in this life (precisely because it may be the only one chance we have)

Because you are a good person, you will do your best to help your neighbor or anyone for that matter. But, do you need laws and regulations to tell you how to be a good person? No! You are a good person because of the way you were educated, because of how your family, friends, church, teachers, and others in your life taught you about right and wrong. We choose every day to do the right thing or the wrong thing according to the law, our rights, our moral principles, our ethics, our safety, etc. We don't make decisions based only on what's legal or illegal. Laws are only part of what regulates our behavior, (and if I may add, a very small part of what regulates our behavior). Think about it every time you do something or refrain yourself from doing something: how many times a day do you think "I won't do this because it's illegal". Even if you were completely certain that you could not get caught ever doing something illegal, for the most part you wouldn't do it not because it's illegal, but because it would be stupid, not safe, immoral, unethical.

I personally believe consuming alcohol is bad for everyone; that drinking has no positive qualities or consequences whatsoever. Someone close to me had a brain injury (not alcohol-related) and I spent a lot of time in a neurological rehabilitation center learning about the negative effects of alcohol in our brain cells (they emphasized that right after a brain injury, refraining from drinking was very important) and learning so much about that affected my opinion on alcohol more than anything else.

Having more laws to regulate alcohol purchasing and consumption is simply not the best solution. Better results can be achieved by spending our time, money, and efforts in educating people about it.

On your adultery example, how many people would refrain from committing adultery if the penalties for it were harder, or if it were enforced more? My guess is, probably not many. Committing adultery is more of a moral and ethical issue than a legal issue for people. It has to do with our education, our environment, what we are taught as kids in church or school or by our families. The same is true with alcohol consumption, laws aren't as important as education, morals, ethics, culture, etc...

Burt:

Russians are OK being told they are wrong and need to shape up. They may not do it, they may argue that you are wrong instead, but they will not consider the behavior culturally unacceptable. When differences of opinion arise the discussion can get very heated but you see no name calling or insults. Americans in a similar situation will either beat around the bush/apologize for every word that could be taken wrong, or the discussion quickly deteriorates, insults flow, and there are bitter feelings afterwards.

On the other hand, there are many things Americans find no big deal that Russians will get worked up about.

Lucia:

I see a law as a form of education. How effective is teaching people not to smoke when tobacco is being sold at every gas station?

Okay..I'm going to do an experiment..boy is this going to be fun. I'm going to tell Sasha he is wrong at every chance I get and see what happens. Oh..well..I probably ruined it by writing it on here...then he'll be ready to not take offense. Sorry honey..I couldn't resist.

Actually I have found that in my interaction with Russians and Americans that Americans do tend to be more careful what they say to people in fear of offending someone. Russians are more likely to tell ya like it is and don't seem to worry about it too much.

To add to that - while Russians can have a heated discussion about matters of individual behavior civilly and with no bitter feelings, a simple disagreement about who is first in line can easily turn violent. Americans in the same situation would not care nearly as much.

Sarah: That's an interesting thought - Like Sasha pointed out, the Latino culture is also more "direct"... In my English class we often had special sessions on how to handle disagreement, emphasizing you need to "soften" your words in the American and Brittish culture a lot more than in the Hispanic culture.

Sasha: Smoking is a great example of my point - it's legal, readily available, and yet its consumption has gone down tremendously in the past few years, presumably because of increased taxes, more education about the health consequences, and regulating the advertisement of tobacco products, and not by regulating who can or cannot purchase cigarettes.

Sasha,

"Demonize" may be too strong a term, yet some folks do seem to be a bit offended or "touchy" with those who don't see alchohol as a "moral" issue. I agree that American culture can be sensitive, yet this doesn't mean all of your personal convictions are right. Am I saying all of mine are? No...that's where my faith comes into play. If I were convinced of the more recent "prophecies" you subscribe to, I would hold your same conviction on issues such alchohol or coffee (by the way, I respect you tremendously for holding to your convictions). Fortunately you do not take offense and are very gracious in your willingness to engage and dialogue on these issues. Also, I agree with your observation on the tension that exists in "tolerating diversity in moral values". This can become quite a "slippery slope". We probably have much in common morally- 10 commandments, loving God, extending this love to neighbors...perhaps even politically...sanctity of marriage, pro-life, etc. Unfortunately for me, the laws does not always reflect my personal convictions and values, yet fortunately it does not prohibit me from raising my family in a way consistent with my personal convictions and I am committed to helping my family not only "tolerate", but respect and love those who are different than us.

Dave- you sound like such a nice guy..we do have a lot in common..strong faith in goodness, family, christian values. Our church leaders actually emphasize the need for us to love everyone and especially to not judge. So I guess you could say it is one of our fundamental beliefs. Sasha may come across strong but he is one of the most loving people I know...

Sarah, thanks...also, I enjoy Sasha's "strong" edge.

Lucia:

What are your thoughts on de-criminalizing crimes like theft, robbery, or murder, and relying on education to prevent them?

Sasha, I believe that would be as ridiculous as punishing misdemeanors with the death penalty. Laws are needed, and lines need to be drawn - and with alcohol purchasing, there are already laws in place. The laws are already there, and the lines are drawn. You can enforce the laws better, you can make the penalties harder, but why have more laws when people already disrespect the ones we have? As with all crimes, there will always be people that cross the line, no matter where the line is. Making the line a little harder to cross by requiring people to get a license to purchase alcohol won't change things much. Do you need a license to go into the supermarket that proves you're not a thieve or a robber? No, anyone can go into the supermarket and if they are caught comitting a crime, they face the consequences. We have freedom to choose our actions. When we make the wrong decisions and break a law, we are stripped from those freedoms. But we're not required to prove that we are able to handle those freedoms before having them. Driving requires specific skills, and that's where the licensing comes into place. Fishing licenses are issued to protect limited natural resources.

What would be the requirements necessary to receive a license to purchase alcohol?

Lucia:

I stated the basic idea of the requirements earlier - if you have not violated the law while under the influence in the last 5 years and if you are not currently on welfare.

I am still unable to follow your argument about education/vs making illegal. I see that you agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but do you have any guidelines other than "where most people would not want to cross it anyway"?

Sasha,

Your requirements make a lot of sense and I agree that those individuals, especially those that broke the law, should not be allowed to buy alcohol. We seem to disagree about when and how to impose the sanctions, partly because we have two different starting points: your assumption is that most (or all) people cannot drink responsibly, and mine is that most people can. Your approach is to require everyone to have a license, mine would be to take away that freedom somehow, but AFTER they've disrespected the law.

The education argument has to do with the fact that there are laws already in place, but they are not being respected - they are very difficult/expensive to enforce, and that's when I think more education or stronger penalties would be more effective, or when other voluntary social institutions need to step in to help, and not rely on the government or in having more laws to fix the problems. I'm not talking about replacing laws with education, I'm talking about supplementing laws with education.

Lucia:

My assumption is not that most people are going to cause trouble if they drink. In order to justify the restrictions it is sufficient to assume that a significant group, not necessarily a majority, will cause trouble if allowed access to alcohol.

We have a lot of examples of this logic in our laws already. Most drivers are sufficiently skillful and responsible to drive with no trouble, yet we require driver's licenses. Most gun owners are responsible, but we require gun permits. Most people will not cause any trouble working with youth, but we require background checks before we let them. Any time the consequences of allowing the wrong person access are sufficiently troublesome we have some measure to keep him out even though most people are OK and he is in a minority.

Why not apply it to alcohol? There is no good logical reason. I have not yet seen one offered in this discussion.

**I stated the basic idea of the requirements earlier - if you have not violated the law while under the influence in the last 5 years and if you are not currently on welfare. **

Unworkable. The practical result is that you've just added an element of "under the influence" to every law in the books. It can be hard enough to litigate in DUI cases...remember, it's LEGAL to drink and drive...but illegal to drive under the influence So you regularly get DUI trials where drinking is conceded, but "under the influence" is the issue. This could then become an issue in every kind of case.

And the long term practical result of banning certain people from drinking is a huge increase in repeat offenders, probation violators, parole violators, who have done nothing but get drunk in their house. Most of the people in prison today are in there for probation/parole violations regarding the consumption of drugs and alcohol.

The prisons are swelling up. So most jurisdictions are moving to "intervention" type courts like drug courts and mental health courts, etc.

I agree that it's a problem to be dealt with but I don't agree making a new law gets us there.

On a side note, I think it's often disregarded how many people are driving around hopped up on "legitimate" medication. There's a been a huge increase in the number of people taking anti-anxiety meds, antidepressants, etc. in our society. Some of those are very powerful, and many people who are otherwise abstainers, become fond of overmedicating themselves.

Jon:

Why would it be unworkable? A person goes into the store. They ID him already anyway. What I am suggesting is that if he wants to buy alcohol they run his ID through a background check and if they find him on the offender list, they deny the purchase. What's hard about that?

I'm going to be the 199th comment because I know everyone's just waiting to be the 200th.

Number 200. Man, this feels great :)

Good job, Chad. Now can we declare this thread dead?

Nope - now we have to go to 300!

This thread is becoming more of spam than anything else. I agree with Jon it time to end it.

That's cheating Chad..I say we call for a recount...

I just thought I'd mention here that there are a lot of law happy people out there.

I've heard of people pushing for a law against driving tired because of deaths related to sleepy drivers. I would be in trouble for sure. Do you think I'd get off easy because there is no such thing as a mom of six who is not tired?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...if you're talking about prior convictions for "Driving While Under the Influence", that would be easy enough.

But the way I read your proposal I thought you were talking about any crime committed "under the influence." That's a whole different boat.