Is the consumption of alcohol a privilege or a right?

[SilentZero]

A Right...that every person in America should enjoy!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Vic
It is neither. It is a freedom.

Rights are inherent and can neither be granted, decided by, or revoked by government.

Ah, then you are not of the opinion that man has the right to live? The state does perform executions. If you cannot recognize this most basic right as unalienable I can't do anything for you.

How does the state performing executions interfere with the right to life?

 

[Toonces]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Vic
It is neither. It is a freedom.

Rights are inherent and can neither be granted, decided by, or revoked by government.

Ah, then you are not of the opinion that man has the right to live? The state does perform executions. If you cannot recognize this most basic right as unalienable I can't do anything for you.

How does the state performing executions interfere with the right to life?

It certainly interferes with the executed's right to life

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: UNESC0

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Vic
It is neither. It is a freedom.

Rights are inherent and can neither be granted, decided by, or revoked by government.

Ah, then you are not of the opinion that man has the right to live? The state does perform executions. If you cannot recognize this most basic right as unalienable I can't do anything for you.

How does the state performing executions interfere with the right to life?

It certainly interferes with the executed's right to life

And considering that capital punishment is only used against those who were duly and lawfully convicted of aggravated murder, what do you think the executed's respect for the right to life is?

I'll be blunt. Only morons argue that capital punishment interferes with the right to life as provided by the DoI or Constitution. At the time the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States was written, there were only 3 types of punishment issued by the criminal courts in America: monetary fines (and if you couldn't pay, you would be sold into servitude), corporal punishment (public stockades, whippings, etc.), and capital punishment (usually hanging). There were ZERO prisons at that time. The very first prison designed for long-term incarceration ever built was Sing Sing in 1828.

The right to life is inherent and inalienable. It can neither be granted nor revoked by the government.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Vic
And considering that capital punishment is only used against those who were duly and lawfully convicted of aggravated murder, what do you think the executed's respect for the right to life is?

Works great in theory. Problem is that our justice system is imperfect and innocent men have been sent to their deaths.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Vic
And considering that capital punishment is only used against those who were duly and lawfully convicted of aggravated murder, what do you think the executed's respect for the right to life is?

Works great in theory. Problem is that our justice system is imperfect and innocent men have been sent to their deaths.

Any system created and ran by humans will always be imperfect because humans are imperfect. It is tragic but true. If we insist on perfection, we would have no system at all. In the meantime, I see life in prison without the possibility of parole as no less tragic than the death penalty. Both are death sentences, the former is just cruelly deferred -- the public torturing the condemned for the sake of its own conscience.

 

[everman]

A necessity of life itself. :beer:

 

[Vic]

BTW, the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the DoI refers to the right to conduct private business and/or seek employment as one sees fit. Meaning no caste or guild systems. For example, you don't have to be a blacksmith just because your father was a blacksmith as was his father before him. This was Jefferson's improvement on Locke's rights as the right to property is actually included within the the right to life. With no right to property, one would have no right to feed, shelter, or clothe oneself. The removal of the right to property is why totalitarian socialist governments always result in mass murder and starvation.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Your ability to buy, posess and consume alcohol is determined by the community you live in.

We have lots of "dry" and "damp" villages up here. In a dry village it is illegal to buy, sell, import, posess or consume alcohol. In some villages the penalties for alcohol are tougher than pot.

Alcohol consumption is not a right. Just because it is legal does not mean that you have a right to it.

Man, I'm glad I don't live there. I can walk into my local Albertsons anytime night or day and buy a bottle of vodka.

 

[moshquerade]

Is spandex a privilege or a right?

that depends on how much alcohol you've had.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: IGBT
..when you study the metabolites of alcohol and the cause/effect on human biology you'll quickly realize consumption is a mistake and there may be no safe exposure level.

The same can be said for food from McDonald's! :laugh:

Cook any amount of an organic compound over a fire or in really hot grease and you get small amounts of carcinogens. Eat it raw and risk bacteria and viruses. The slowest suicide is self preservation.

 

[Golgatha]

I do have one thing to think about though. I'd say it is a right in the practice of one's religious beliefs (e.g. communion at church). If the native Americans get peyote, then the Catholics should be able to continue serving wine. It's only fair and to deam it a privilege as regulated by the government would tread on freedom of religion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Man, I'm glad I don't live there. I can walk into my local Albertsons anytime night or day and buy a bottle of vodka.

Yeah, the one nice thing about California is the "liquor stores." (In CA, every small grocery store and convenience store is called a "liquor store," something that takes outsiders a while to get used to).

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Vic
And considering that capital punishment is only used against those who were duly and lawfully convicted of aggravated murder, what do you think the executed's respect for the right to life is?

Works great in theory. Problem is that our justice system is imperfect and innocent men have been sent to their deaths.

Any system created and ran by humans will always be imperfect because humans are imperfect. It is tragic but true. If we insist on perfection, we would have no system at all. In the meantime, I see life in prison without the possibility of parole as no less tragic than the death penalty. Both are death sentences, the former is just cruelly deferred -- the public torturing the condemned for the sake of its own conscience.

Ah so now you are saying that our rights only extend as far as humans are perfect? You've walked yourself around the circle back to where we began: "Rights are inherent and can neither be granted, decided by, or revoked by government." You agree that we have the right to life, but not those convicted of capital crimes, even if wrongly so? This is circular logic if I ever heard it.

Oh, one other thing: when you say something like "Only morons argue that capital punishment interferes with the right to life as provided by the DoI or Constitution." this is known as an ad hominem attack, an attack against the man rather than the issues, this substantially weakens any point that you would hope to argue.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
Ah so now you are saying that our rights only extend as far as humans are perfect? You've walked yourself around the circle back to where we began: "Rights are inherent and can neither be granted, decided by, or revoked by government." You agree that we have the right to life, but not those convicted of capital crimes, even if wrongly so? This is circular logic if I ever heard it.

Oh, one other thing: when you say something like "Only morons argue that capital punishment interferes with the right to life as provided by the DoI or Constitution." this is known as an ad hominem attack, an attack against the man rather than the issues, this substantially weakens any point that you would hope to argue.

And now you're grasping at straws. You appear to not have a clue what a "right" is. For example, do you also argue that individuals sentenced to prison have had their right to liberty revoked? No. Government does not grant, decide, or revoke rights. The people do. Government only governs with the consent of the governed.

As to my so-called ad hom attack, you did an excellent job editting out the part where I explained actually exactly why (and in detail) it is a moronic argument. And because of that careful explanation, my argument was not an ad hom, and my use of "morons" was simply a snide comment. And as you were the first to start with those snide comments (and continue to use them), I don't think its use was uncalled for.

 

[clamum]

I agree with Vic, it's neither a right nor a privilege. But, as long as it's legal I don't really care.