Political Crossfire Forums

[00timh]

slitedeviance wrote: 00timh wrote: I was stationed in Germany for 3 years and you have no idea what you are talking about.

No you're absolutely right. I guess having been there three times in the last year (once for the world cup, and that was excellent) would mean I don't know what I was talking about.

How long since you were stationed there? NOthing hs changed because Germany has a long history of the way in which its society views alcohol consumption. So, you saw a bunch of drunks wandering about during the world cup, what a big surprise! :lol: I could say the same thing about Oktoberfest but that is not representative of the entire country.

I was culture shockd when I first got there and saw business men drinking beer at 7:00am waiting to catch their morning commute at the train station. The first thing I thought to myself is what a country of alcoholics. Soon I realized that Germany as a whole practices much more moderation with alcohol consumption even though it does not have the typical social stigmas associated with it that we do.

[slitedeviance]

[quote="00timh"] slitedeviance wrote: So, you saw a bunch of drunks wandering about during the world cup, what a big surprise! :lol: I could say the same thing about Oktoberfest but that is not representative of the entire country.

I wasn't trying to be representative of the whole country, merely demonstrating the difference I found between a night out in Germany (never had any problems, lots of drunk people, made good friends) and a night out in Britain (loads of problems, lots of drunk people hitting each other and been mugged and attacked). These are cultural differences, which I think was the original point being made.

When 24 hour drinking came into effect in the UK there were worries that it would breed more binge drinking, more societal problems and more alcoholics. What happened in my city was that all the pubs could set their own closing time, and worked together to avoid the previous situation, which was at the 11PM closing there would be thousands of drunks coming onto the streets at one time looking for a fight.

Again, all of this is down to how you use / enjoy alcohol. As you say, in Germany they are alot more moderate with regards to how they drink (not neccesarliy the amount they drinK) whereas in France it's all down to when & where you drink (breakfast, lunchtime, snacktime, dinner, supper, midnight feast), anytimes a good time for a glass of red!

[00timh]

[quote="slitedeviance"] 00timh wrote: slitedeviance wrote: So, you saw a bunch of drunks wandering about during the world cup, what a big surprise! :lol: I could say the same thing about Oktoberfest but that is not representative of the entire country.

I wasn't trying to be representative of the whole country, merely demonstrating the difference I found between a night out in Germany (never had any problems, lots of drunk people, made good friends) and a night out in Britain (loads of problems, lots of drunk people hitting each other and been mugged and attacked). These are cultural differences, which I think was the original point being made.

When 24 hour drinking came into effect in the UK there were worries that it would breed more binge drinking, more societal problems and more alcoholics. What happened in my city was that all the pubs could set their own closing time, and worked together to avoid the previous situation, which was at the 11PM closing there would be thousands of drunks coming onto the streets at one time looking for a fight.

Again, all of this is down to how you use / enjoy alcohol. As you say, in Germany they are alot more moderate with regards to how they drink (not neccesarliy the amount they drinK) whereas in France it's all down to when & where you drink (breakfast, lunchtime, snacktime, dinner, supper, midnight feast), anytimes a good time for a glass of red! a lot of it has to do with where you are as well. When I took a USO trip to England I did not see any rioting behavior or drunks or whatever. Of course it we went to decent areas of London. There was quite a bit of drinking going on at the Beef eater restaurant but it never broke out into any problems. Later that night in the Kensington area I went into a small pub and didn't see anything there either.

I could definetly show you around some areas of Frankfurt that are pretty bad, but I could also show you a small wine town called Rudesheim that has a really active night life but very much under control. You can take the extreme examples of these communities and if you do not see anything else that is what a person may be led to believe.

I have seen so many examples of young posters on here who have not had the amount of experience that I or others who are older have had and have formed opinions based on what they have seen and heard, or read. While that should be taken into account, there is no substitute for actual experience of a variety of areas and different society make ups.

[Boneman]

perdidochas wrote: Sukoi wrote: perdidochas wrote: Boneman wrote: This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

It's all cultural. In Germany, for instance, drunkenness isn't as associated with violence than it is in America. The name "assasin" comes from the word "hashish." THey used hashish, a cannabis product, to help psyche them up for killing. That is different culturally than the "peace love, etc." that we associate with pot.
Hmm, that sounds a lot like why cannabis was made illegal in the first place. Ever heard of Harry Anslinger?

I was actually criticizing the OP for demonizing alcohol, the same way marijuana was demonized. Personally, I think it's cultural. Our culture associates marijuana with peacefulness. Most pot smokers are peaceful. Our culture is mixed in terms of associations of alcohol--some are peaceful, others are aggressive. Hence, we have both associations. I'm of German descent, primarily. When I drink, I get happy, and affectionate, and I joke around a lot (and think I can dance). When my father drinks, he gets morose and depressed (thankfully, that part of his Scotch-Irish genes didn't pass to me, I got my mother's German alcohol genes). Please read for comprehension, not merely defending your drug of choice. My whole point was that different cultures cause different reactions to intoxicants. I would imagine that potsmoking with the Hell's Angels would be a different experience than potsmoking at the vegetarian commune, for that reason.



Sukoi wrote: Quote: "In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"
Phaleese... Responsible cannabis users are some of the most non-violent people on the planet and most are just that, RESPONSIBLE people who, BTW, hold down jobs and support their families. Please, all of you prohibitionists, quit your ADDICTION to prohibition as it is brainwashing you and you may never recover...

I was actually criticizing the OP for his anti-alcohol stance--it's hypocritical to demonize one drug, while advocating another. In terms of prohibition, it's a failed experiment (both in alcohol and marijuana). I'm still for prohibition of harder drugs (i.e. cocaine derivatives, most hallucinogens, and narcotics), but that is because of their greater risk of long term side effects.

Responsible alcohol users are also some of the most non-violent people on the planet, and most are just that, RESPONSIBLE people, who, BTW, hold down jobs and support their families.
Im not demonizing alcohol, im just saying comparitivley, alcohol is more dangerous to others than marijuana.

[slitedeviance]

00timh wrote: I have seen so many examples of young posters on here who have not had the amount of experience that I or others who are older have had and have formed opinions based on what they have seen and heard, or read. While that should be taken into account, there is no substitute for actual experience of a variety of areas and different society make ups.

Just need to point out that being younger doesn't always mean being less experienced, in the same way as being older doesn't always mean being wiser.

[perdidochas]

Boneman wrote: perdidochas wrote: Sukoi wrote: perdidochas wrote: Boneman wrote: This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

It's all cultural. In Germany, for instance, drunkenness isn't as associated with violence than it is in America. The name "assasin" comes from the word "hashish." THey used hashish, a cannabis product, to help psyche them up for killing. That is different culturally than the "peace love, etc." that we associate with pot.
Hmm, that sounds a lot like why cannabis was made illegal in the first place. Ever heard of Harry Anslinger?

I was actually criticizing the OP for demonizing alcohol, the same way marijuana was demonized. Personally, I think it's cultural. Our culture associates marijuana with peacefulness. Most pot smokers are peaceful. Our culture is mixed in terms of associations of alcohol--some are peaceful, others are aggressive. Hence, we have both associations. I'm of German descent, primarily. When I drink, I get happy, and affectionate, and I joke around a lot (and think I can dance). When my father drinks, he gets morose and depressed (thankfully, that part of his Scotch-Irish genes didn't pass to me, I got my mother's German alcohol genes). Please read for comprehension, not merely defending your drug of choice. My whole point was that different cultures cause different reactions to intoxicants. I would imagine that potsmoking with the Hell's Angels would be a different experience than potsmoking at the vegetarian commune, for that reason.



Sukoi wrote: Quote: "In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"
Phaleese... Responsible cannabis users are some of the most non-violent people on the planet and most are just that, RESPONSIBLE people who, BTW, hold down jobs and support their families. Please, all of you prohibitionists, quit your ADDICTION to prohibition as it is brainwashing you and you may never recover...

I was actually criticizing the OP for his anti-alcohol stance--it's hypocritical to demonize one drug, while advocating another. In terms of prohibition, it's a failed experiment (both in alcohol and marijuana). I'm still for prohibition of harder drugs (i.e. cocaine derivatives, most hallucinogens, and narcotics), but that is because of their greater risk of long term side effects.

Responsible alcohol users are also some of the most non-violent people on the planet, and most are just that, RESPONSIBLE people, who, BTW, hold down jobs and support their families.
Im not demonizing alcohol, im just saying comparitivley, alcohol is more dangerous to others than marijuana.

I don't think you proved that point, either. Alcohol is a worse problem in the U.S. because many more people use alcohol, and our culture has the idea of "mean drunks" engrained into it. Pot isn't a problem, because fairly few people (compared to alcohol users) use it, and our culture associates pot with hippies and munchies.

[perdidochas]

slitedeviance wrote: 00timh wrote: I have seen so many examples of young posters on here who have not had the amount of experience that I or others who are older have had and have formed opinions based on what they have seen and heard, or read. While that should be taken into account, there is no substitute for actual experience of a variety of areas and different society make ups.

Just need to point out that being younger doesn't always mean being less experienced, in the same way as being older doesn't always mean being wiser.

Nine times out of ten, though, younger means less experienced, and older means wiser (at least wiser than the same person was as a youth).