I would be interested in people’s responses to the following statements and questions:

If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off.

While there may be some benefits to be derived from gambling and alcohol, these benefits are outweighed be the harm.

Are we as a society addicted to alcohol and gambling?

If not, then does this mean most people would disagree with the above statements?

I think gambling and alcohol/other mood altering substances have been a part of human society since antiquity. I think that shows that there is some need or benefit in such things. But as in a lot of what we do too much of a good thing is bad. Many times very bad.

Past history has shown banning such things does not work. Prohibition, the war on drugs, SP bookies etc etc etc have all made things much much worse.
On the other hand as, you alluded to, todays almost complete liberalisation of at least alcohol and gambling is also a complete failure.

I wonder whether it might not be in our interests to hand control of such industries to the government. We all know how useless governments are at promotion and marketing let alone innovation and in the context of these potentially damaging facets of society that might be a good thing.

It wouldnt be banning them, which never works, but pubs and gambling dens would be staid and utilitarian government departments and not prone to(not capable of hahaha)trying to increase their business and suck ever more people to their doom the way private companies do. I would also rather see profits (and the taxes) going into general revenue to provide the proper infrastructure for our society rather than into already bloated pockets and bank accounts of the current exploiters..oops I mean owners.

If there was a bit more of that and a bit less of slaving for the man maybe a few less people would want to escape into alcohol or drugs or other self destructions in the first place.

Of course we would be better off, but that's not saying much. We could also say we would be better off not sleeping with women except for procreation in the confines of marriage, not eating as much salt as we currently do, eating less red meat, eating less chocolate, eating less generally, not listening to loud music (eardrum damage) and the list goes on...

Yes of course we are addicted to many things, especially life and things that are fun. Fun things often involve an element of risk (and reward).

Your point?

No, I don't believe banning alcohol and gambling would be of much benefit to society. There would only be a much murkier underground, black market kind of practice of these activities taken up instead.

What I would like to see banned is the legal selling of any tobacco products in this country. I realise we could also have the black market scenario here too, but there is no 'safe' level of tobacco use, whereas there are safe levels of alcohol use or gambling.

<<No, I don't believe banning alcohol and gambling would be of much benefit to society. There would only be a much murkier underground, black market kind of practice of these activities taken up instead.
>>

Hi suzanonline,
Banning alcohol and gambling when people are not willing to abstain would have these effects. But the first statement raised the issue as to whether there would be benefit IF Australians gave up willingly, so avoiding the issues you raised.

<<If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off.>>

The benefits are not too difficult to think of: low health costs, less violence, crime, domestic violence etc. The costs? Probably very minor relative to the benefits.

So the major barrier to reaping these benefits would be the fact that Australians are not willing to give up alcohol and gambling, because this would mean (as you say) the emergence of an underground economy (e.g.US Prohibition).

So are we as a society addicted to alcohol and gambling? An addict knows that it is in their best interests to stop, but continues with the same detrimental behaviour. Is that a fair description of our society?

Hi all,
The above question is addressed to everyone not just suze.

Bugsy and Mikk, do you see my point?

We as a society know that the benefits of giving up alcohol and gambling are overwhelming compared to any potential costs, but we still indulge in these activities.

Isn't this behaviour similar to that of an addict, or more generally a person lacking in self-control:

We as a society know that it is in our best interests to stop, but we continue with the same detrimental behaviour?

Should we not drive because people die on the road.
Stay away from the sea,people drown.
Keep out of the bush snakes live there.
For every problem drinker a few just have a couple.
Some gamble just for fun,I win some times not others but never lost a cent I could not afford to.
Humans are not looking for more regimentation, more rules imposed.
The current view poker machines are evil may well be true but what gun forces fools to be fools.
Every punter understands wins are just others losses you can not beat the machines.

There is nothing wrong with either alcohol or gambling, if they are used in moderation.

People are the problem.

One way the limit the use of alcohol would be to impose a heafty tax on 'bulk purchases', rather than the current system, whereby buying in bulk usually results in 'discounted' prices.

Rather than selling beers by the slab, sell them in 'four packs' and, if one chooses to buy more than one 'four pack', then be ready to fork out some serious 'cash for tax'.

As for gambling, one the the independants has raised the issue of 'excessive gambling' and has stated that it is currently possible for an individual to loose as much as $15,000 per hour in a single poker machine. If this is correct, it's insaine!

Of cause if you reduce this amount, you must also reduce the winnings.

Won't worry me as I don't gamble. Not becuase I'm a 'prude', simply because I don't get a kick out of it.

Revenue V risk.
As always, if you slash the revenue stream from anything, you must then find the revenue from something else and, I don't know any government revenue stream that's making a killing at this point, other than these two and cigs.

So there in lies your problem.

The primary question asked must bring the answer of yes. The problem is that we will not give up alcohol and gambling willingly. Even cigarets have proven very hard to budge and they are condemned almost unanimously.
Our freedom to indulge in these things is a fairly concrete part of freedom, our freedom has been slowly eaten away over the past 30 years and we don't seem to notice it.
If you want better control over sales then introduce heavy restrictions on where and when alcohol and gambling can be sold or take place. Require people to have a card like an eftpos card that will only allow them to purchase a limited amount of alcohol or gambling credits in any 24 hour period.
This will not stop home brewing or the good old card night but these are not the issue at hand. We need to stop blaming things like alcohol, gambling and drugs for problems in our societies and face up to the real problems that these people have. Most drug addicts are so because of other things that have happened in their lives, this is what we need to tackle.
Prohibition does not work this is clearly proven, so why do we persist with it?

Nope. It doesn't work like that, nairbe.

>>The primary question asked must bring the answer of yes<<

The "primary question" isn't really a question at all.

grateful asks if we "willingly" gave up alcohol and gambling, would we be better off.

What grateful has done is highly manipulative, in that he comprehensively attributes the virtues of "low health costs, less violence, crime, domestic violence etc.", to universal abstinence.

He fails to put the other side of the story, that the vast majority of drinkers and gamblers are healthy, law abiding folk, who don't beat up on their wives.

Getting that section of the community to "voluntarily" eschew their beer and bob-on-the-nags is not going to contribute one iota to a better society.

Apart from the fact that it is a heavily loaded question, it could not possibly occur. If it were possible - i.e., every individual independently chooses neither to drink nor to gamble - it would already have happened. The fact that they haven't, indicates that some form of coercion would be necessary.

So, sorry mate, I'm not buying into what is effectively a sermon, not a question for realistic debate.

Dear grateful

"If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off."

The superficial answer would have to be yes. The real answer is in the scheme of how things really are, is no.

To start with, drugs and alcohol do not belong to any of us as individual problems. Sure people make lifestyle choices and must take responsibility for these. But who paints the ideas about what alcohol is to us in our society. What is McDonalds? what is smoking? What do these lifestyle choices represent to us in our picture of what we want to choose from the smorgasboard of temptations. Big business and the media send us these pictures. They don't tell us what to think, but they do provide us with the pictures that influence they way we see lifestyle choices within our culture.

I doubt if people would want to willingingly give us the things that make them feel relaxed, more confident, give them a bit of a thrill to their otherwise perhaps dull lives, make them feel like they can afford to take the family out to dinner when they really could not otherwise do so.

The problem is not the vices, the problem is not the people who use them, the problem is that things like alcohol and gambling offer the hope of comfort. The keepers of the problem are those in big business and the media who capitalise on human vulnerabilities. In an ideal world we would all be calm and confident, but life just is not like that for everyone.

Society would be much better off if the sly, unrelenting agents of fundamentalist religion gave up their sneaky attempts to control others and went and went an had a beer too.

It is little by little that we lose our freedom. If there is not a loud outcry and strong action to prevent the little losses, soon we have lost the very foundations on which we stand.

Don't take our cooperation and willingness to accept individual differences as signs of weakness in our democracy for they are actually strengths.

Heh, heh, I lost it totally: "and went and went an had a beer too."

Must have been that Kylie Mole skit I was watching with the teens. Goodness, I guess we will have to give that up too when the scowling fun police in beards and black kick open the door.

Just so I can advise my daughter and her friends, is it possible to watch a portable DVD player under those voluminous blue or black chaff bags they use for the most dangerous half of their society? Er, and would there be power points available to surreptitiously charge same? Just getting things right before the roll-in of Sharia Law.

So i guess it be accurate to say that most people would not be willing to forgo alcohol and gambling despite the costs.

Pericles write "If it were possible - i.e., every individual independently chooses neither to drink nor to gamble - it would already have happened. The fact that they haven't, indicates that some form of coercion would be necessary."

It has happen for about 1/4 of the world population, without coercion.

And Pericles and Cornflower. I'm born and bred Australian so please stop refering to me as some alien that is taking advantage of your hospitality. If i have a view about what is good for our society, i'm entitled to it even if it makes you feel a bit uncomfortabnle. I would have prefered you addressed the post with reason rather abuse and inuendo

grateful, I don't see any abuse or innuendo evident in Pericles' or Cornflower's posts in this thread. What I do see is that your transparently disingenuous 'bait and switch' strategy has failed miserably. Normally it's Christian godbotherers who employ such dishonesty at OLO, but it's not really surprising to see it coming from a Muslim apologist.

If you want to proselytise your religion, why not do so honestly?

<<grateful, I don't see any abuse or innuendo evident in Pericles' or Cornflower's posts in this thread. What I do see is that your transparently disingenuous 'bait and switch' strategy has failed miserably. Normally it's Christian godbotherers who employ such dishonesty at OLO, but it's not really surprising to see it coming from a Muslim apologist.

If you want to proselytise your religion, why not do so honestly?>>

OK fine i'm not only sneaky, i'm also dishonest. Obviously, the questions have touched a raw nerve.

Like i said, i am entitled to my views about what is good for our society. If you think they are wrong, then they are there to be challenged. You guys obviously feel more confortable tackling the man rather than the ball.

enjoy!

And I did assume we were talking about harm caused by excess. A teaspoon of white sugar in my tea (white sugar is known as white poison), a latte or 2 or sometimes even three per day and if I don't I'll get a headache the next day so I'm sure I'm willingly addicted to this, white bread if I feel like it, creamy cholesterol unfriendly cheese when it takes my fancy, I always eat butter because I like the taste and never limit myself, I have been known to take the occasional cigarette although rarely these days, a little chocolate usually every day because I like it, good wine because I detest the cheap stuff and usually once per week but depending on what happens, sometimes even two or three - oh and gotta get a quickpick on Saturdays because of the little buzz I get when I think about winning. Does this make me a sinner and a danger to society, or to myself? So I did assume we were talking about harm caused by excess - not taking the life out of the enjoyment of living. I've never liked the taste of beer, but I might have a glass of delicious champagne tonight, brut and methode champagnois of course.

You're going to hell, dotto. Mind you, it sounds very pleasant... see you there!

Thanks Dotto,

You have your wine and butter and chocolate. The difference is that if we all, of our own free will, gave up butter and chocolate we could not say society would be any better off.

On the other hand, if everyone were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so willing thereby eliiminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) would society not be better off?

Pericles,
I'm also interested in your response to this question:

If the majority of Australians were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so willing thereby eliminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) would society not be better off?

Clearly it would be wrong to say, as you did, that coercion would be necessary, because Muslims prove this wrong (perhaps also Budhists). So it is a real alternative.

*Clearly it would be wrong to say, as you did, that coercion would be necessary, because Muslims prove this wrong (perhaps also Budhists). So it is a real alternative.*

Not so grateful, because sly grog etc, is sold just about everywhere.
It is the religious police and the police, who make sure it does
not happen too openly, or that people are locked up if they
don't comply.

Not just sly grog either.

In Malaysia I'm told they patrol at Ramadan, to check if restaurant
patrons are actualy Muslims or not, having lunch during daylight
hours.

If all Muslims did all these things willingly, there would be
no need for religious police and no need to ban alchohol sales.

Not all Muslims do not drink.
I had 4 in their 20,s who drank quite a lot and got kicked out of work bed rooms twice for it.
They very much followed their religion and in time lost their jobs because of continuing drunken damage to rooms.
The world would, in my view be a far better place if judgmental people stop preaching to rule the world in the name of non existent Gods all of them.

Grateful ,
Now let me get this right, you say:
<< While there may be some benefits to be derived from gambling and alcohol, these benefits are outweighed by the harm>>”
When I saw that, I thought, what a can of worms this fellows opened…holy worms , but worms nonetheless!
[he swallows a mouthful from his glass of scotch]
I mean, to come to that conclusion one must have a heap of studies that quantity the costs and benefits of each, and derive a net result.
And, before you jump in and give us some link, to some obscure medical journal, about the evils of the demon drink. Any such analysis would have to include --all benefits --and I’m not even sure how one could determine what --all the benefits-- might be!
Or , did you perchance think , it might give you an edge to push your preferred creed, that just happens to discourage gambling & alcohol, and which up till now has received bugger all interest from the good fellows on OLO, ay ?
[ He finished off the glass and pours another & drinks the lot ]

Th Then, Greatful, I notice ya go on to sa ssay :
<<The benefits are not too difficult to think of: low health costs, less violence, crime, domestic violence etc. The costs? Probably very minor relative to the benefits>>
Which ssounds much the ssame ass the firsts but hass a little …just a little…more edge.
But you are aware aren’t you …ah, maybe noot, that with aaall of the above –al-co-hol iss at besst, an asssessessory
[ he pours another and drinks it ]

And lllets tesst your hypoth …Hypothss … Hypothos… ah, your idea.
In Saudi Araaabia which is doubly blessssed –having lashing of Islam and lackings of alcohol.They still have violence – lotsss of violence it ssseems :
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/16-nails-removed-from-body-of-sri-lankan-maid-lt-ariyawathi/19610766
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news%5C2010%5C8%5C59100_image_headline.html
Hypo …hypoth hypothiuesa disssproven! I’d ssay.
And worth a celebration –cheerss
[ he picks up the half empty bottle and sculls it

grateful: << Clearly it would be wrong to say, as you did, that coercion would be necessary, because Muslims prove this wrong (perhaps also Budhists). So it is a real alternative >>

Told you so.

Of course, there's no coercion exerted by Islam over its followers, is there?

And your third propossssion, Gr Grapeful, is:
--<< So are as a society addicted to alcohol and gambling? An addict knows that it is in their best interests to stop, but continues with the same detrimental behaviour. Is that a fair description of our society>>
Here you sseem to be impplying we , our sssociety, iss addiccted to both of SSSatan’s little tempt-ationss …though it is a little hard to be shh sure right now . But if that be the cassse, if that be the case, you would be vilifying the whoooole group ooon account of the actionss of a few. Or, leastways, vivifying al-co-hol because a few are wont to get nasssty under itss influence … ..which does seen remi remi ..ah, akin to something you found objectionable somewhere else. ..though I can’t at this moment recall where … I’m ssshure it will come to me .

I did not know that the lack of alcohol in Muslim countries was entirely voluntary.

That would of course mean that they do not, or at least should not need to make laws aginst the importation, manufacture or retail of such things, should they?

Why is it that they do? Why is it that some of the countries with the harshest penalties for vice infringments (esp drug and alcohol related) happen to be Muslim, if it's not a problem and they have given it up voluntarily?

Dear grateful,

I gather from your posts that you look upon
alcohol, gambling, as a form of deviance.
You think society would be better off
without them.

Alcohol is a factor in
numerous traffic deaths and homicides each
year, and is implicated in thousands more
deaths arising from such causes as liver
damage and job accidents. I'm not sure of the
figures, they are proportionately high, of
how many Australians are compulsive alcoholics,
and the destructive effects of their addiction on
family life, human relationships, and the economy
are incalculable.

In spite of these widely known facts, alcohol
is still publicly used in the most
respectable circles. One reason that
alcohol is acceptable is that it is
a "traditional" drug, well entrenched in
our culture. The other factor is
that powerful economic interests benefit from
its continued consumption. Also an additional
reason is the social attitude towards a drug
depends more on who uses it than on what its
effects are. If the users of a drug are socially
disapproved and negatively labeled, so is the
drug - which is beginning to happen to tobacco.

In the past, marijuana use was associated with such
"disreputable" groups such as jazz musicians,
"hippies" and the rebellious young. The drug was
made illegal, through "moral entrepreneurs."
Barbiturates or amphetamines, for example, are
approved if prescribed to respectable people who
"need" them, but not if used by juveniles for
"kicks."

It's all relative, the same goes for gambling.
It all depends on who does it, whether its
acceptable or not.

Our society has given its citizens an
unprecedented degree of freedom, and is sometimes
confronted with the fact that some people abuse
that freedom. A society that places
greater emphasis on conformity to the rules - like
China, for example, tends to have less deviance,
though at the cost of personal freedom.

Freedom, implies choice, the exercise of choice
leads to differences; and one group's differences
soon become another group's deviance.

In this sense, deviance may just be a part of the
price that a free society pays for the liberty its
members enjoy.

Grateful, humans are like kids that never grow up, Because of our rebellious natures we will always want forbidden fruit. It is very hard to legislate for anything sensible because the grown up kids will find a way of getting around the law. The problem is not alcohol so much as it controls people. It has destroyed many of our first people as they have been reduced to begging for $2 in many of our Regional centres. Unfortunately we are not willing to forego our selfishness in order to help others. Dope smokers know that it leads to triggering Schizophrenia in many people but they only care if it happens to them. The Government is now reliant on pokies for income. Selfishness usually dominates peoples thinking. They are happy to bang on about the climate change myth because it does not affect them. Give them something practical where they can help society and they scream for their rigths.

All mind altering substances need to be banned including sex.Sex gives you a natural high and entices you to work harder get married ,have a mortage, children,spouse,be responsible,pay taxes,be a slave to corporate enterprises.Really there is no future in it.

Pure hedonism is the way to go. Self indulgent narcissism is the way to go.We all need to carry mirrors around and tell ourselves constantly how beautiful we are,in order to stave off poor self image.We should all aspire to a Kevin Rudd image of self importance.This is where the future lies with lobomised bureaucracy and the nervana of a UN executive position.Totally bubble wrapped and protected from reality.

In case you can't find me when you get there CJ Morgan, I'll be at the bubble-wrap party!

If you take away alcohol and gambling - which history has shown to be pointless and MORE detrimental - the people who can't control themselves for whatever reason will either take it underground or find something else to lose themselves on. After all, it's not actually the alcohol and the gambling that is the problem.

Here is the question again:

<<If the majority of Australians were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so willing thereby eliminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) would society not be better off?>>

Since noone appears to be prepared to argue against (correct me if i'm wrong), should i presume that people agree that society would be better off if the majority of Australians were to WILLINGLY forgo alcohol and gambling?

J.P. Morgan: you have a go while we wait for Dotto and Pericles. Speak to the topic. What is your answer?

The answer to your question, Grateful, is NO.

Our funloving society would only replace these pleasures with other pursuits.
In any case it is a very unlikely situation that people used to living freely in Australia would ever 'willingly' do such a thing!
The vast majority of people who drink or gamble do so responsibly.

I want to ask you a question Grateful.

If a country where alcohol and gambling was banned were told the people could now have their own free will restored to them, and be able to drink or gamble if they chose to, would they feel less restricted in their life?

Grateful>>On the other hand, if everyone were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so willing thereby eliiminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) would society not be better off?

Or, if all radicle religions were to cease practicing and refrain from taking thier beliefs beyond thier private homes and places of worship, wouldn't society, as a whole, be better off.

YES!

A quite fag or beer never hurts anyone other than the user, same goes for one following thier religious faith, it's just when they take thier way of life and impose it on others that the problems begin.

Grateful:"Clearly it would be wrong to say, as you did, that coercion would be necessary, because Muslims prove this wrong "

LMAO. I am friends with 2 Moslems, one from Pakistan and one from Indonesia. Both attend Mosque regularly although neither observes the daily prayer requirements. Both of them drink.

Your question:"If the majority of Australians were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so willing thereby eliminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) would society not be better off?"

is putting a utopian view that can never be realised. Most people would NOT forego these things willingly, so your question is pointless. There are any number of Utopian postulates that could be put forward in the same vein:
if people were nice to each other willingly would we need police?
if all drivers behaved perfectly on the road at all times would we need to have invented insurance?
if nighttime was day time would we need night lights?

If sure you get the idea. It seems you've already decided that the coercion required to get people to forego their pleasures is not justified on the basis of social good, so you've answered your own question. Whether individual harm comes about as a result of indulging in their pleasures is a matter for the individual.

Grateful, Comrade I heard some place that religion is a drug of the masses.
Seems true to me.
We must not stop trying to lessen the damage these things do but the answer is no it always will be no.

Suzeonline
<<The answer to your question, Grateful, is NO.

Our funloving society would only replace these pleasures with other pursuits. >>

If the other pursuits were more constructive, then your answer should have been YES. So, for example, if instead of spending money and time on alcohol and gambling people, people could enhance their knowledge, take time off and spend for the kids, help others and lead much healthier lives. The opportunity cost of alcohol and gambling is high.

<<If a country where alcohol and gambling was banned were told the people could now have their own free will restored to them, and be able to drink or gamble if they chose to, would they feel less restricted in their life?>>

If these laws were the only reason they are not drinking and gambling, then yes they would feel less restricted in their life.

On the other hand, those for whom the decision to abstain does not depend on these laws would probably feel that such laws protected them from the negative impact that alcohol and gambling can have on peoples behaviour towards themselves and others.

I would give greater weight to the preferences of those who abstain because i think whatever benefits there may be in alcohol and gambling, they are far outweighed by the costs. But i would only have such laws when the overwhelming majority abstained from alcohol and gambling WILLINGLY: it is only in this context that they could serve a constructive role.

Thanks suzeonline, as well as nairbe, dotto, runner, foxy and Stg, for some useful comments and addressing the topic with reason.

grateful, "If i have a view about what is good for our society, i'm entitled to it even if it makes you feel a bit uncomfortabnle."

It is the way of fundamentalists to utterly believe that they have the solution for other who are misled or living in sin.

What I am telling you is that I am not buying what you are selling. I have no need for it. I am happy as I am. My freedom is a treasure.

What you should be aware of is that there are many still living who endured the needless inhibitions, impositions, restrictions and bans of fundamentalist religion post-WW2. Their stories, backed up by the newspaper and film records, would send a chill through to the bones of any student of history.

What you are selling is infinitely worse and for women a catastrophic wind-back of everything gained in decades. Your proposal to ban and limit people's rights for their well-being and welfare (as determined by you), to allow you and those like you to do their thinking and make decisions for them, is an insult to anyone's intelligence. That is especially so in a country that is still shaking off the yoke of fundamentalist religion, in particular the persistent interference of the Roman Catholic Church.

Your false dilemmas are typical of the manipulation of religious fundamentalists and are rejected, totally. Religious fundamentalism is an obscenity, a blemish on our secular society and the sooner it is all sloughed off the better we will be.

I've been thinking that grateful is some kind of proselytising Muslim, but on reflection I think s/he's actually a Methodist.

Methodist? Do they bounce too?

Because my dear departed father once threw a Catholic priest down the steps of a Queenslander (many steps) for reducing my mother to tears. It was a 'mixed' marriage and she had given Catholicism the flick, much to the chagrin of the local ogre in black, who was wont to visit when he knew dad was away to give her a righteous serve of lip.

Anyhow, Catholic priests do bounce. However replacing the house yard cattle dog when needed works a treat and is the proactive solution of choice. No need to over-rev the tractor back to the house that way.

LOL Cornflower - hilarious mental image.

I'm not sure if Methodists bounce as well as Catholics, but I'm certain they wouldn't approve - it could be confused with dancing. Heaven forfend!

Mind you, I've known plenty of Catholics who are fond of a drink and a punt...

I think the key point here is freedom to choose - most people can gamble and drink in moderation but yes there it is definitely a problem for some people. It is very difficult to turn back from legalisation once it has become part of the norm and it is very difficult to part an Aussie from his beer. :)

It is wrong to say Islam does not achieve this alcohol free stance without coercion in some Islamic States. Like many States (not only Islamic) often there is less adherence among the privileged.

So it comes down to weighing up the harm effect. Is there more harm in the coercive arrangement than not.

Unfortunately those that would voluntarily give up alcohol and gambling are not the problem, it is those that could not that would remain.

Yeah, Cornflower - I second that Lol

C.J.

Our Catholic friend often refers to his penchant for alcohol imbibed from a "Catholic-sized glass"....meaning a big one - as opposed to the much diminished Protestant version.

*So, for example, if instead of spending money and time on alcohol and gambling people, people could enhance their knowledge, take time off and spend for the kids, help others and lead much healthier lives.*

I guess the same point can be made for religion. Think of the
enormous time and money wasted on religion! If people used all
that time and money more doing more constructive things, the
world would be a better place.

Alcohol is incredibly harmful to society as a whole. MUCH,MUCH more so than heroin, dope, speed, cocaine and all the illegal recreational drugs combined. It's every bit as much a drug as any other drug.

Banning alcohol is a useless exercise in futility (because of it's history and acceptance). The BEST way to get rid of it is to STIGMATISE it....... similar to the way we've successfully stigmatised tobacco use. In 50 years there will be hardly any cigarette smokers left in Australia. We can achieve similar results with alcohol.

Alcohol and gambling are harmful, but they have one benefit which outweighs their harm: the opportunity to be wise and choose to stay away from them.

Any legislation to the contrary, would hit in the face all good people who abstain from alcohol/gambling. Suddenly, even though nothing would seem to change outwardly, instead of continuing to express their integrity by their actions and let it shine, they would be reduced to a law-abiding mob that only acts in fear of legal retribution. Is this how society wants to reward goodness, caring, effort, wisdom and integrity? or do the legistlators seek to steal our sense of achievement and self-esteem?

Stop being precious, grateful.

>>And Pericles and Cornflower... If i have a view about what is good for our society, i'm entitled to it even if it makes you feel a bit uncomfortabnle. I would have prefered you addressed the post with reason rather abuse and inuendo<<

Of course you are entitled to express your view.

Only you tried to couch it in terms that are, as I stated, manipulative. That is neither abuse nor innuendo. It is a straightforward assessment of the manner in which you tried to make your "question" lead to a specific "answer".

You gave yourself away, by protesting...

>>Clearly it would be wrong to say, as you did, that coercion would be necessary, because Muslims prove this wrong (perhaps also Budhists). So it is a real alternative<<

There is no coercion in religion?

That has to be the most naive statement ever made about religious belief.

Organized religion, of every shape, form and manifestation, is nothing more nor less than coercion of people into a particular set of beliefs and behaviours. Whether it has to do with contraception, abortion, drinking, gambling, eating fish on Fridays, whatever.

So please, simply accept that you are unable to pull the wool over our eyes, and back off gracefully.

Pericles is still preoccupied with policing my intention. LOL!

Indeed, JC Morgan and Cornflower, you have also yet to address the topic. Along with Pericles you prefer to attack the person. Its seems the topic itself, and the questions i directed to you, are too much of a challenge. I see no difference between your behaviour and that of AGIR and his ilk. You are just as much promoters of hate and conflict.

"If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off."

This also applies to driving big cars, prostitution, smoking, and plethora of other self indulgent, but morally dubious choices. Unless one can program humans to be responsible robots, the choice will always be to either legally regulate these industries or have them operate underground.

The bottom line is that grog, cigs and gambling all create jobs, and lots of them.

Right from the farmers, to the manufacturers, the distributors, the retailers/sellers and the medical and policing staff required when things go pear shaped.

My simple question is, where will these jobs come from if we ban all of these?

Beleive me, if these items did not generate taxes, they would be deemed illigal in a heart beat.

I think the penalty for 'excessive missuse' must be much harsher, but then you start to effect the 'well being' of the innocent victoms, 'the families', of the offenders.

It's like a dog chasing its tail!

Perhaps it would be enough not to create massive opportunities, with pubs and clubs turned into street corner casinos, and boozing on 24 hours a day, and all done now under the banner of 'jobs jobs jobs', along with 'free choice' of course.

Funny how the jobs list only has the 'positive' ones listed, not the mental health workers, rehab staff, ambos, emergency workers who cut bodies, and bits of bodies, from wrecks, lawyers, insurance costs and so on... the other face of the 'hospitality' industry.

Of course, our weak kneed politicians would rather a few drunks killed and maimed people than they had to re-organise the taxation system, so as not to rely on boozing and mindless gambling so much.

As for the punters who moan about 'being taxed too much'... many of them seem to have ample to feed into gambling and over the bar.

Maybe we need to take some of the medicine doled out to Indigenous folk, and have all our incomes 'cared for' by the government, so it could not be spent on fags and booze and gambling.

Seems all our whitie politicians think its a 'good idea' for Indigenous people, why not apply it to everyone with an income in Australia?

That would prevent the rich from wasting theirs too, so they'd no longer have to rort their taxes to be able to spend a penny.

Dangerous ground eh? State control, except when it's done for 'the good of the natives'.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet Act 3, scene 2.

>>Pericles is still preoccupied with policing my intention... indeed, JC Morgan and Cornflower, you have also yet to address the topic. Along with Pericles you prefer to attack the person. Its seems the topic itself, and the questions i directed to you, are too much of a challenge. I see no difference between your behaviour and that of AGIR and his ilk. You are just as much promoters of hate and conflict.<<

That's a pretty long bow you are drawing there, grateful. It does rather underline my point, though.

Rather than view it as "policing your intention", or "attacking the person", consider it as a simple deconstruction of your opening position.

The "question" you posed is not really a question, since it strictly limits the parameters of an answer. For example, you include the statement "these benefits [of alcohol and gambling] are outweighed be the harm."

Which is an opinion, not a fact.

This, on its own, provides a perfectly legitimate reason to question the motives of the writer.

Your ancillary question "Are we as a society addicted to alcohol and gambling?" also indicates an inbuilt predisposition, by using the word "addicted"

All of which provide a backdrop to your main "question":

>>If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off.<<

Asking for a yes/no answer from such a heavily loaded question clearly indicates an agenda that goes beyond its purported boundaries.

All of which casts doubt on your opener:

>>I would be interested in people’s responses to the following statements and questions:<<

You go on to make it clear that you are really only interested in hearing from those who agree with you. Sadly, you then proceed to equate any disagreement as promoting "hate and conflict".

You might like to consider why you do that, when you find yourself with a moment for quiet contemplation.

A reasonable micro study of alcohol restrictions in aboriginal
communities is enough to demonstrate that the negatives far outweigh the positives, and there is little chance that wet canteens will ever be returned to the camps.
Unfortunately, the mainstream society in Australia does not have the same economic back-up, and so restrictions wont happen for the rest of us.
Great idea, put heaps of pokies in the pubs, then quaranteen welfare payments to prevent problem gambling...

"If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off."

Yes sure, but the keyword is WILLINGLY.
For that to happen I would say, legalise all drugs but direct the revenue to provide excellent drug education and to prevention and health services.

"Are we as a society addicted to alcohol and gambling?"
What are the numbers of addicts in Australia, and what percentage is that?

Even if you would find the number of addicts high (and what number is considered *high*?), the more important thing is to know what the percentage is out of that percentage of addicts who find their addiction a problem, and/or the percentage that actually causes a problem for their family or for society.
If they don't cause problems even if they are addicted, would addiction matter?

<<Poker machine regulation is a sensitive issue within Labor, and a South Australian federal member weighed in on the side of more control.

''Pokies cause immense harm in the community and MPs see that harm every week and every month and every year,'' Nick Champion said. ''We've got rivers of gold at the moment flowing to pubs and clubs and rivers of tears in the community and that's not an appropriate situation, its not an ethical situation, and it is about time we had robust debate in the Parliament on legislation that implements the Productivity Commission's recommendations.''
>>
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/state-labor-rejects-pokie-reform-20100829-13xna.html

Pericles,

I see you are still struggling with the question. No-one else seems to be having the same problems you are having. At least your trying. Cornflower and JP Morgan: do want to give your friend a hand?

That's pure delusion, grateful.

>>Pericles, I see you are still struggling with the question,,

But it's good to see that you are still struggling for an effective response. So far, you have simply slagged off those who disagree with you.

>>I would have prefered you addressed the post with reason rather abuse and inuendo<<

There was no abuse. There was no innuendo. You simply invented these so that you could play at being a victim.

>>Obviously, the questions have touched a raw nerve... you guys obviously feel more confortable tackling the man rather than the ball.<<

There you go again, pretending to be offended, when in fact your "arguments" are simply being straightened out.

>>Since noone appears to be prepared to argue against (correct me if i'm wrong), should i presume that people agree...<<

That's just putting your hands over your ears and going "La-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you"

>>Its seems the topic itself, and the questions i directed to you, are too much of a challenge<<

Not really. It seems more of a challenge to get you to listen to the answers.

Have a great day.

Celivia you hit a bit of nerve there, ouchh! I think my emotional response to this has just crossed over the blood-brain barrier!! - You wrote

>>the more important thing is to know what the percentage is out of that percentage of addicts who find their addiction a problem, and/or the percentage that actually causes a problem for their family or for society.
If they don't cause problems even if they are addicted, would addiction matter??<<

Personally, I don't give a 'rats' what lifestyle choices other people make provided it causes no harm to others. Have a snort of coke, drop an X, smoke a joint, drink champagne with a straw so it works faster and swing upside down naked while you're doing it, I don't care! It's none of anyone else's beeswax either.

Addiction however is quite a separate issue. Addiction DOES matter, it always matters and that's the point about being an addict. When a lifestyle choice which becomes addictive begins to affect the person's judgement, then they have become an addict. They are an addict because their addiction becomes their main priority. The perception that addiction causes no problems for those around them is fantasy. Take for example, the intelligent, high functioning, highly articulate alcoholic. His/her choice, fine. But as an addict this is his/her single most important priority. He/she will be having a full-time relationship with his/her addiction first, and his/her partner and children, second. There are many kinds of addiction and some are relatively invisible, such as the above example just given. Addiction is mood altering, focus altering, judgement altering and DOES always affect and harm the hearts of those around the addict. Of course the addict may not find it a problem, and this probably due to the numbing effects of the self-medication of alchohol. Addiction such as alcohol addiction is a progressive chronic disease. Yes Celivia, addiction does matter, it ALWAYS matters - unless of course you're a hermit!

The Blue Cross,seems you have an axe to grind, but please don't group us who don't have a problem with those who simply can't, or won't, look after themselves.

I drink, I gamble a bit, but I also am a good father, a good husband and a job creator.

Now as for a fairer tax system, boy would I love to see that.

You see, the reason we have to raise taxes wherever possible is because income taxes are drying up and there are simply to many hands in the cookie jar.

Fix this problem and many other problems will be solved.

Meanwhile, we simply have to rely on the taxes raised from these items just to survive.

Now as for 'Funny how the jobs list only has the 'positive' ones listed', read my post.

*Addiction DOES matter, it always matters and that's the point about being an addict. When a lifestyle choice which becomes addictive begins to affect the person's judgement, then they have become an addict. They are an addict because their addiction becomes their main priority.*

There you go Dotto, a perfect description of the deeply religious!
They live for their religious fix, it affects their every judgement.

It certainly damages the rest of us, when they lose all sense of
reason. From the Taliban to religious posters on OLO, religious
addiction is very common.

Rehctub..I have no axe to 'grind' on this issue at all.

I see no point in talking about banning boozing or gambling but suggested that perhaps it should not be given the major focus it gets.

Gambling is a gormless activity that fleeces far too many. I do buy the odd scratchit, in moments of pure greed when I am hoping to get something for nothing, so have to confess to first hand knowledge of the gormless tag.

Boozing is more socially useful, so long as 'boozing' is not taken to mean being constantly plastered...merely 'sipping' from time to time.

Fags... well, there really is no excuse for them at all is there?

You'd have to try very hard to smoke one fag, never mind a box of 50 or so these days, but clearly people who are really keen do manage this, and pay the price of an addiction in no time at all, so it seems....if you endorse the farmers of this weed, no doubt you'd have no trouble with the opium poppy farmers either.

After all, think of all the jobs jobs jobs it creates! Prisons, shrinks, police, break and enter repairs, social workers, importers, customs, bent cops, judges, solicitors... I could go on.

Pubs are revolting places now, brim full of wide eyed goons gambling on one arm thieves, TAB races blaring out, screens full of sports... and now ours are open til opening time again, they are full of pissed-up idiots, who then go off to 'clubs' to have more, and then fight with the coppers and anyone else who they think are 'looking at them'.

There's $30billion in lost revenue via the blood sucking churches, then all the 'family trusts', the salary sacrifice arrangement for vicars and government workers, super rorts by the cwt, CEO payments that probably attract no taxes at all... there's plenty of room for Gillard and Abbott to tax a few people if we are 'moving forward' in the next couple of weeks.

Shadow Minister wrote:
<<"If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off."

This also applies to driving big cars, prostitution, smoking, and plethora of other self indulgent, but morally dubious choices. Unless one can program humans to be responsible robots, the choice will always be to either legally regulate these industries or have them operate underground.>>

Hasn't the campaign against smoking been one of "programing" humans to be "responsible robots", as well as happier, healthier and less of a buran to others and the taxpayer?

Grateful... you wrote what you say Shadow Minister said, didn't you?

It's in your first post, the one that started the thread!

What does this mean?

"less of a buran".

I've never heard of a 'buran'... what is it?a

Pericles was right, your comments are very manipulative Grateful so don't try and create a 'da, da I told you so' moment out of this, because there isn't one! You can't twist the message about responsible robots into a picture of happiness for society Grateful. That was the point of using robots as a metaphor for people who have 'willingly' decided to do something that was not their own idea to do. Robots don't have ideas, we program them. Maybe you're thinking of Robot in Lost in Space - but Dr Smith still had control over the power pack.

Thank you Yabby!! Alcohol and religion - and you can place either in the context of addiction with similarly damaging outcomes. Never thought of it in this way before. Yes, I can certainly see your point about this.

Buran Buran, it's Grateful's new punk rock band. Their new single is called Wasted but Free - you know kind of a rocked up metal version of Born Free - without the lions but ... for animal rights reasons, naturally.

I don't know what the real point of this discussion is anymore.
Yes addiction can be bad if it creates problems for the addict and/or their environment/family.
But they might not create a problem.
I don't understand, Dotto- are you saying that an addiction is only defined as addiction if it creates problems and if it does not create problems it is not a 'real' addiction?

Just be practical about this, Grateful. As long as people find pleasure in gambling or drugs, they will find a way to satisfy their need for them.
To be 'willing' to give up these things they like, they need to be motivated and educated; and there needs to be a good reason for them to want to give it up.

Perhaps authorities should be motivated to 'willingly' give up their addiction of wanting to control others :)

Yes Celivia, the point of the discussion was never about addiction, but my point about addiction followed on from the point you made about it and which I think is relevant to the overall picture anyway.

**I don't understand, Dotto- are you saying that an addiction is only defined as addiction if it creates problems and if it does not create problems it is not a 'real' addiction?**

Yes I am saying that more superficially, or maybe part of it was what you said, but what I'm actually saying is that it's not quite that straight-forward, because like just about everything else in life Celivia, it depends. If it's not a 'real' addiction then it's not an addiction. And then it depends upon what kind of 'thing' is being categorised as an addiction. Being addicted to work, the computer, whatever - people do lots of things on a regular basis so it could turn into a neverending list along the continuum of addictions. Let's say for example, that it's just a little bit of an addiction - but that would be like being just a little bit pregnant wouldn't it? So maybe being just a little bit addicted is like not having a 'real' addiction. Maybe it's more like a little bit of harmless pleasure in this sense.

I think a real addict (eg alcoholic) is controlled by their addiction and that this is always damaging to them and those around them in some way or another. In my understanding, someone is not addicted if the addiction is not controlling them and they are aware of how far to go, and when to stop. Doesn't mean that they will never lose control, doesn't mean that at all, just that they are not being controlled by their addiction. With 'real' addiction comes loss of choice, or loss of the ability to have choice because of loss of the judgement to be able to choose anything but the addiction when it comes to making a choice between that and anything else. It's loss of freedom. And that is addiction

If the majority of Australians were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so WILLINGLY thereby eliminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) then society would be better off.

I think most of us agree with this statement. Obviously, in fact almost by definition, the problem does not stem from those who drink "responsibly", although it is also true that many of those who do drink "responsibly" have probably, in their youth not been so responsible (myself included).

It is the youth where a lot of the damage is done: alcohol fueled violence, including rape, depression. While it is fair to argue that alcohol does not cause anything (people have to take responsibility for their own actions), it certainly doesn't help and certainly makes problems worse. Here is an excerpt from a study about the link betwen alcohol and rape:

<<ALCOHOL AND RAPE WHAT'S THE CONNECTION

(adapted from "Acquaintance Rape and Alcohol Consumption on College Campuses," by Antonia Abbey, PhD, Journal of American College Health. Vol. 39, January 1991)

Alcohol use by the victim or perpetrator is frequently
associated with acquaintance rape. In one study, 26 percent of the
men who acknowledged committing sexual assault on a date reported
being intoxicated at the time of the assault. An additional 29
percent reported being "mildly buzzed," Thus, a total of 55
Percent were under the influence of alcohol.
In the same study, 21 percent of the college women who
experienced sexual aggression on a date were intoxicated at the
time of the assault. An additional 32 percent reported being
"mildly buzzed." Thus, a total of 53 percent were under the
influence of alcohol.>>

The article goes into detail about the effects of alcohol on men and women: http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/alcohol.html

By the way, the description of me as dishonest and manipulative is offensive and really has no justification. In another post i was labeled a child-abuser (another atheist). It reminds me of the sort of name-calling, mocking and bullying tactics of school playgrounds. To be honest i do not understand the pschology of it but it obviously gives you comfort to think of me in that way. Demonise away, i'm used to it.

Yabby:
<<There you go Dotto, a perfect description of the deeply religious!
They live for their religious fix, it affects their every judgement.>>

Another clever person!

Well not quite. An addict does not want to be an addict. They crave for a drink now, but they do not want to continue drinking in the future. Addicts do not want to be addicts. They know that it is in their long run interests not to drink. Their preferences can be expressed as follows

(1) a drink now, but no drink later
(2) no drink now, no drink later
(3) a drink now, a drink later
(4) no drink now, a drink later

What does this mean? These are the payoffs in a prisoners dilemma game (which i’m sure i do not have to explain to you) ranked in order of preference. This is how each situation can be thought of:

(1) one for the road before kicking the habit
(2) kicks the habit now and in the future
(3) status quo
(4) tries but fails: may as well have had the drink

The addict knows that they need to kick the habit for their own well-being. However, at the same time they have a craving for alcohol right now. There is a conflict of interest between the long-run interest and the short-run interest. To kick the habit, the long-run interest needs to prevail. How can it prevail?

Retaliation: the self concerned with the person's overall well-being ‘threatens’ that if he takes the drink now, he will take it in the future as well, so that the impulsive self will not get his preferred option (1) but will end up with option (3): the status quo. Since the addict prefers (2) to (3), he will restrain himself and choose (2) rather than trying for (1). Of course, the addict will fail many times but you get my point (see George Ainslie Derivation of "rational" economic behavior from American Economic Review 81, 334-340, 1991, which, among other articles, can be download from here: http://picoeconomics.org/articles.htm)

cont....

cont...2/2

As for a religious person, i can only speak for the practicing Muslim. If we were to represent the preferences of Muslim we would have the following:

(1) religion now, religion future
(2) no religion now, religion future
(3) without religion in the future

As you can see, a Muslim wants to be sure that he dies with his religion. He doesn't want to give up his religion. He does not see himself as going against his long-term interests in practicing his religion now or in the future. On the contrary, it is against his interests to lose his religion.

The religion in fact is seen as providing a means of overcoming addictions. There was a very well structure process by which the first Muslims were weened off alcohol, so that when the Qur’aan finally called on people not to drink they did so WILLINGLY. There is no such thing as a “moderate drinker” among practicing Muslims: they simply do not drink ...at all!

Muslims fast... for 30 days (from dawn to sunset), young and old, taking absolutely no food or drink (or smoke etc..) in this period...to loosen the bonds of our impulsive selves, learn self-control, patience and gratefulness. We are now in the last 10 days of Ramadan..you guys have no idea what your missing! Again the religion is providing a means of overcoming addictions.
So, at least from a Muslim perspective, religion is an anecdote for addiction: drawing closer to our Creator is seen to be in our long-term interest.

Boy am i in trouble now: let me have guys!

Yes Grateful, I agree with this part

*While it is fair to argue that alcohol does not cause anything*

If a person becomes a rapist when intoxicated you can be reasonably confident about two things: they already had underlying sexually aggressive tendencies, and, that they are already physically fit enough to be a rapist whilst being intoxicated. Rape of any kind is an act of abusive aggression, sexual bullying towards another. A reasonable person would not do this no matter how much alcohol they'd consumed - unless they had some kind of chemical imbalance or an underlying personality disorder. It's very common for people to be less inhibited when they are intoxicated, and more willing to engage in sexual encounters they may decide against when sober, but there's a line to this Grateful. A drunk is not a rapist unless they already were a rapist to start with.

You have a point about the name-calling Grateful so my apologies for this. I do think that your words were manipulative but I can also see that from your perspective this was not your intention.

*An addict does not want to be an addict. They crave for a drink now, but they do not want to continue drinking in the future. Addicts do not want to be addicts. They know that it is in their long run interests not to drink.*

Not so sure about this one Grateful. Addicts also know that other people want them to 'willingly' stop their addiction. Knowing something and wanting that same something are two different things. A person doesn't choose something they don't want in the first place. They may already know where it leads but it won't stop them from finding a way of getting it if they want it. No amount of telling a person what they should or should not have is really going to change what they desire, and what they desire is what they need (good or bad) so they will usually find a way of getting it. We all get what we need in some way or another.

Yes, a society living under Sharia (or Methodist) prohibitions would undoubtedly suffer less from the problems that a small minority of people have with alcohol and gambling.

But who'd want to live there?

You're still not listening, grateful.

>>If the majority of Australians were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so WILLINGLY thereby eliminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) then society would be better off. I think most of us agree with this statement.<<

On the contrary, I think that the evidence of this thread weighs heavily against that conclusion.

The reality is - as dotto is trying so hard to point out to you - that addiction is the problem. Alcohol and gambling are simply the vehicles through which that addiction manifests itself.

So the "willing" abstainers are most likely to be those whose drinking and gambling is not a problem to society.

Hence, even if they all willingly abstained tomorrow, society would still have the exact same problem from the unwilling (the addicts), and will not be better off at all.

>>By the way, the description of me as dishonest and manipulative is offensive and really has no justification<<

The reason your opening post was "manipulative" (which, by the way, does not by itself indicate dishonesty) was that it was specifically phrased to reach only one conclusion.

It subsequently became clear that you needed this conclusion in order to point out that voluntary abstinence was a core aspect of the Muslim way of life.

Which is indistinguishable from the "bait and switch" tactics used elsewhere on this forum by religionists of other persuasions. Now you are aware of it, you won't be surprised in future when it is pointed out to you.

>>So, at least from a Muslim perspective, religion is an anecdote for addiction: drawing closer to our Creator is seen to be in our long-term interest.<<

I'm delighted to hear that you have found a way to resist temptation.

I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous and Gamblers Anonymous also have a fine track record.

“If Australians willingly gave up alcohol (and other drugs) and gambling then society as a whole, along with these individuals, would be better off.”

It would seem that throughout history most cultures have had their own intoxicants.

If they gave up drugs of their own volition, yes, undoubtedly everyone would be better off, except the marketers of such products. But society won’t give it up. An interesting statistic from the period of Prohibition in America during the 1930’s, was that the incidence of alcoholism doubled during that period…when it was illegal to make it, sell it and consume it, addiction to it doubled!! So the key is that it must be given up, not taken away.

Gambling is different. We all gamble everyday in life. I know you’re referring to poker machines, horse racing, casino’s, lottery tickets etc, but they are merely microcosmic examples of some of the small risks we take in life, but in this instance, with money, which is not too different from what a businessman does in risking capital in a venture. Admittedly, one would assume that a business venture is far more calculated than a bet, but since 60% of all new businesses fail in the first 3 years, it’s not a lot different, conceptually, since 60% of people going into business know as much as a punter…they think it’s easy, and all they have to do is open their doors for business, and they will make money. That’s rare, and more often than not, luck. But they risk their savings, or mortgage their house to do it. It’s a gamble, and it’s a gamble to make money, but hopefully, on the longer term, not the short term like “gambling”.

Crossing the road is a gamble, applying for a job is a gamble, starting a venture is a gamble, placing blind trust in the cars we drive is a gamble. All of them have elements of risk, but we would say that on most occasions that it is a relatively well calculated risk.

TBC...

So again, we come back to just those that either abuse that gambling, risk-taking and betting. Most of us don’t have a “problem” with alcohol or gambling, but may enjoy the occasional glass with dinner and friends, and an occasional Lotto ticket when it’s over $10M in prize-money. What’s the harm? The harm is only for those that have little to no self control and abuse these things. It would be like banning sugar to stop obesity.

“While there may be some benefits to be derived from gambling and alcohol, these benefits are outweighed be the harm.”

That’s individual, and statistically, a small minority. Better that we instead of marketing these things as being “cool” and glorifying them culturally, that we educate and warn.

“Are we as a society addicted to alcohol and gambling?”

We’re addicted to materialism, what is “trendy”, “cool” and “sexy”, and our marketers give us what we want. We, as a society, follow what our favourite celebrities do, and they are mostly dysfunctional. We then wonder why we and our kids have problems when we attempt to emulate dysfunctional people. We’re addicted to screens and monitors and the ever pervasive swill that oozes from them, and have the temerity to call it “information”. We’re addicted to the trappings of Capitalism…you can get anything you want (at Alice’s Restaurant).

*An addict does not want to be an addict*

Well not quite Grateful, for of course self delusion is one of
those great human foibles. The stuff I've read on dealing
with addictions, starts with trying to get people to accept
that they have an addictive problem in the first place.
Some do, but a great many are in denial.

Addictions nearly all relate back to brain circuitry,
dopamine and the reward/pleasure centres of the brain.

Religion works on a similar level. Hope and fear are
the drivers. Many people become anxious over uncertainty.
Religion gives you perceived certainty, it brings the
homeostasis of your brain chemistry back into balance.

In other words, religion rewards you with feelgood brain chemistry,
as addictive substances reward addicts.

The very thought of understanding/coping in a world
without that religious certainty, sends many believers
into a frantic panic. I've had some admit to me that
if they did not believe one religion, it would be another
one. They need that religious certainty to cope with life.
Real addicts.

Perecles:
<< You're still not listening, grateful.

>>If the majority of Australians were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so WILLINGLY thereby eliminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) then society would be better off. I think most of us agree with this statement.<<

On the contrary, I think that the evidence of this thread weighs heavily against that conclusion.

The reality is - as dotto is trying so hard to point out to you - that addiction is the problem. Alcohol and gambling are simply the vehicles through which that addiction manifests itself.

So the "willing" abstainers are most likely to be those whose drinking and gambling is not a problem to society.

Hence, even if they all willingly abstained tomorrow, society would still have the exact same problem from the unwilling (the addicts), and will not be better off at all.>>

Perecles,

Two questions:
1. How do you think addictions start?
2. Is addiction the only social disease associated with alcohol?

Some answers:
Addiction begins as a bit of fun, not an addiction. You with your mates, at parties, pubs, ‘socialising’, ‘celebrating’, having sex, etc..., with the community providing constant encouragement.

Other social costs:
As for the other costs Alcohol Education & Rehabilitation Foundation has just released a report entitled "The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others". "The report was commissioned to assess harm caused by the heavy drinking of others. It draws on and analyses a wide variety of existing and newly developed data, including a national survey of more than 2,600 Australians aged 18 or older conducted in 2008."

Look at the index to get an idea of the range of issues.

In relation to alcohol-related violence alone:
cont...

cont...

<< 24 August 2010: A new research report commissioned by the Alcohol Education & Rehabilitation Foundation (AER Foundation) reveals the true financial cost of alcohol-related violence in Australia is
yet to be uncovered, with the latest estimate at a conservative $117 million in 2005.

The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others report estimates, based on police data, that there were 70,000 alcohol-attributable assaults reported in 2005 costing the nation over $117 million. Notably, this estimate does not take into account the associated costs incurred by police, courts and corrective services. It also does not factor in the intangible costs, which include fear, pain,
suffering and lost quality of life.

The costs to the health system were the highest reported of all impacts at $58.92 million. The second major contributor was lost output at $57.1 million, which includes missed work time and
time spent calling police, seeking counselling and time in emergency departments and hospitals.

The report highlights that these costs are substantially underestimated given that victimisation surveys show that only 37% of assault victims report the crime to police.>>

(http://www.aerf.com.au/showcase/MediaReleases/2010/Media%20Release%20-%20New%20Research%20Shows%20Costs%20of%20Alcohol%20Related%20Violence%20Significantly%20Underestimated.pdf)

So there is enormous benefit to be had if people were to abstain willingly.

Mindlesscruelty:

<<If they gave up drugs of their own volition, yes, undoubtedly everyone would be better off, except the marketers of such products. But society won’t give it up. An interesting statistic from the period of Prohibition in America during the 1930’s, was that the incidence of alcoholism doubled during that period…when it was illegal to make it, sell it and consume it, addiction to it doubled!! So the key is that it must be given up, not taken away.>>

I think there is good reason to disagree. Society would give up under the right conditions. It is fair to say that Islam succeeded in eliminating alcohol as a social disease and this has been because it has succeeded in having people willingly abstain from alcohol.

In particular, when the parents abstain then they have a clear moral authority to explain to their children the problems that can occur with gambling and alcohol (and other drugs) and the harm outweighs any benefits.

<<Gambling is different. We all gamble everyday in life. I know you’re referring to poker machines, horse racing, casino’s, lottery tickets etc, but they are merely microcosmic examples of some of the small risks we take in life, but in this instance, with money, which is not too different from what a businessman does in risking capital in a venture. >>

I think you are blurring the meaning of gambling a bit:

Gambling: involves the transfer of money based on chance

Business: involves the transfer of money with the intention of purchasing something, to produce something else to sell it to someone else. The profit is derived from a calculated risk, not pure chance.

The gambling industry: is a business of facilitating gambling

If people were to stop gambling they would be spending their money on other things. Other industries would replace the gambling industries

cont..

MindlessCruelty:
<<We’re addicted to materialism, what is “trendy”, “cool” and “sexy”, and our marketers give us what we want. We, as a society, follow what our favourite celebrities do, and they are mostly dysfunctional. We then wonder why we and our kids have problems when we attempt to emulate dysfunctional people. We’re addicted to screens and monitors and the ever pervasive swill that oozes from them, and have the temerity to call it “information”. We’re addicted to the trappings of Capitalism…you can get anything you want (at Alice’s Restaurant).>>

Agreed. The idea that happiness can be purchased is what sells products.

Yabby
<<*An addict does not want to be an addict*

Well not quite Grateful, for of course self delusion is one of
those great human foibles. The stuff I've read on dealing
with addictions, starts with trying to get people to accept
that they have an addictive problem in the first place.
Some do, but a great many are in denial.

Addictions nearly all relate back to brain circuitry,
dopamine and the reward/pleasure centres of the brain.>>

Yabby, the addict will say that they can give up any time they want. So they are in denial of their addiction. But this is different from saying that they actually WANT TO BE ADDICTED. Show me the science which supports this idea. The very fact that they are denying their addiction implies that they see addiction as a BAD thing not something that is good for them. If they wanted to be addicted there wouldn’t be addicts in denial or trying to kick the habit!

Yabby <<Religion works on a similar level. Hope and fear are
the drivers. Many people become anxious over uncertainty.
Religion gives you perceived certainty, it brings the
homeostasis of your brain chemistry back into balance.

In other words, religion rewards you with feelgood brain chemistry,
as addictive substances reward addicts.

The very thought of understanding/coping in a world
without that religious certainty, sends many believers
into a frantic panic. I've had some admit to me that
if they did not believe one religion, it would be another
one. They need that religious certainty to cope with life.
Real addicts.>>

A religious person is not in denial of his belief or trying to get rid of his religion. Therefore the religious cannot be characterised as addicted.

What i think you and others are trying to say is that people like myself have no rational or scientific grounds for believing in a Creator and so there is a need for an alternative explanation. A primordial need for certainty is one such explanation and presumably you can think of others.

However, atheists whose only experience is with Christianity are trying to ‘cut corners’ and avoid a bit of hard work when they project their experiences to all religions. With Christianity there are obvious examples in which the doctrine can be challenged:

Science: the earth much older than the Biblical account of 5,800 years
Reason: God does not need to do anything, let alone become a man, to get anything done: He simply say ‘Be!” and it is’

Here you can argue that thus beliefs can not be understood on rational grounds.

However, you and others generalise without justification. There are a large number of claims and propositions within the Qur’aan which provide refutable propositions suitable for this purpose. If you are correct then it shouldn’t be too much trouble to find justification. In the meantime you need to be a bit more circumspect in your assertions about Muslims and the grounds for their belief.

*A religious person is not in denial of his belief or trying to get rid of his religion. Therefore the religious cannot be characterised as addicted.*

Grateful, I think you will find that a great many religious people
have doubts sometimes, about what they believe. But there are huge
social pressures on people to keep believing and stay with their
faith. Think of JWs who are somewhat isolated by their religion
and lose their friendship circle and way of life, should they
change their mind. Many Muslims too, cannot openly renounce their
religion, for fear of persecution.

To understand brains and how they function a bit further, here
is a great place to start.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/collection/10702

I did in fact read 31 years by Ali Dashti, a Persian who grew
up as a Muslim and studied Islam. Unfortunately he died in
Kohmeini's jails.

Richard Dawkins has it about right here. Religion is very much
a question of geography. Most people simply accept the faith
that they were indoctrinated with, as a child. So if you were
born in Iraq, you'll most likely be a good Muslim and if you
were born in the US bible belt, you'll most likely be singing
the praises of the Jesus story. So geography seems to decide
about 95% of cases.

@ grateful, " Society would give up under the right conditions. It is fair to say that Islam succeeded in eliminating alcohol as a social disease and this has been because it has succeeded in having people willingly abstain from alcohol."

You realize of course, that "the right conditions" within Islam is the death penalty, don't you? In Saudi Arabia, you may incur the death penalty for:

*possession of alcohol;
*possession of a crucifix;
*possession of pornography.

These are rather extreme meassures to bring about abstinence.

Oops Grateful, I got it wrong, Ali Dashti's books was called
"23 years" I must have allowed for inflation :)

Anyhow, I finally found it in the book collection, I read it
some years ago. Dashti had all the training and was destined to
become an Islamic scholar, but changed direction and became
a journalist.

23 Years was all about Mohammeds life and how he cobbled
the Koran together. I found it pretty interesting, in terms
of understanding Islam.

MindlessCruelty <<These are rather extreme meassures to bring about abstinence.>>
Well the Wahhabi's are extreme.

Such measures were/are not necessary to bring about abstinance. They were not used in the time of the Prophet. In those times there were several revelations in the lead up to abstenance:

the first revelation stated that there is both benefit and harm in alcohol and gambling, but that the harm out-weighs the good;

the second verse instructed those who had been drinking not to come to the mosque (an important sanction because the mosque had become central to the community)

The third and final verse instructed Muslims to abstain from alcohol and gambling. When this verse was revealed it was reported that the streets were flowing with wine. People just quit the instant they heard the instruction.

Why just look at Saudi Arabia? Look at our Muslims neighbours, Indonesia and Malaysia, where the majority of Muslims live, as well as Muslims in Australia.

Anyway, as you yourself have said whenever governments try to ban alcohol, AGAINST the public's will, there will arise a blackmarket, and even greater drinking as in the days of Prohibition in U.S. The fact that this does NOT exist (or is very small) among Muslim communities indicates that the demand is simply not there to support it.

<<*A religious person is not in denial of his belief or trying to get rid of his religion. Therefore the religious cannot be characterised as addicted.*

Grateful, I think you will find that a great many religious people
have doubts sometimes, about what they believe. But there are huge
social pressures on people to keep believing and stay with their
faith. Think of JWs who are somewhat isolated by their religion
and lose their friendship circle and way of life, should they
change their mind. Many Muslims too, cannot openly renounce their
religion, for fear of persecution.>>

Well i came from a family of atheists and i can tell you there were enormous social pressures on me to give up my religion. You wouldn't believe how insistent people can be about drinking when they find out you are Muslim and do not drink.

<<To understand brains and how they function a bit further, here
is a great place to start.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/collection/10702>>

That looks interesting. thanks

<<Richard Dawkins has it about right here. Religion is very much
a question of geography. Most people simply accept the faith
that they were indoctrinated with, as a child. So if you were
born in Iraq, you'll most likely be a good Muslim and if you
were born in the US bible belt, you'll most likely be singing
the praises of the Jesus story. So geography seems to decide
about 95% of cases.>>

This is consistent with what the Prophet said: "No child is born except on Al-fitra and then his parents make him Jewish, Christian or Magian (Zoroastrian), as an animal produces a perfect young animal: do you see any part of its body amputated?"
(Narrated Abu-Huraira;Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 441).

Al-fitrah refers to the natural disposition of the child, before being subject to the influences of his/her environment, which is belief.

*People just quit the instant they heard the instruction.*

Ah Grateful, if it were only so simple.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm

I remind you that Iran has the world's highest rates of heroin
addiction.

*This is consistent with what the Prophet said*

That is my point Grateful. The Koran gives you perceived certainty
about the world. For posters like Boaz, the Bible does it for
them. This reduces anxiety about life, which is good for feelgood
brain chemistry. Believers don't even have to worry about death,
for if they follow the rules, they will have a ticket to heaven.

All easily fixed! Wether it's really true or not hardly matters.
As long as people believe strongly enough, they will be less
anxious and more content. They have perceived certainty.

Yabby,
Your last post must be a joke! Your insistance that i am irrational riven with anxiety and seeking certainty ignores everything i have said.

Muslms constantly invite others to look at the qur'aan in the same way that people have done with the Bible. I invited you to do so. for example, if Ali Dashti is correct and the Qur'aan merely regurgitates Jewish and Christian scriptures then one should be able to find the same inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies with the Qur'aan as are found in the Bible. Certainly there a millions motivated to do so, so such a conclusive proof against Islam shouldn't be hard to find.

I have also laid bare in other posts what for me would undermine the rational grounds for my belief: evidence that the Prophet was a liar/deluded or that the Quraan has been corrupted. Invariable atheists dodge these challenges.

In other words i do not run away inquiries that could undermine the rational grounds for me maintaining my beliefs.

On the other hand describing me as anxious and in need of certainty obviously "does it for you": you have no need to challenge your own beliefs and you can take pride your own "valour".

No matter how little knowledge you have about my religion, you will come back to the same point: you're belief has no scientific or rational grounds and is a form of escapism. This approach is exactly what you are decrying. Saying the Qur'aan was "cobbled together by Muhammad", despite having never seriously inquired into the Qur'aan (have you ever read it or just listened to it recited?)and dismissing the events that lead to people of Medina giving up alcohol obviously "does it for you": gives you your certainty that you haven't made the wrong choice. It leads to a supremicist and prejudiced mentality. You dare not say: "I don't know" or "I may be wrong"

*You dare not say: "I don't know" or "I may be wrong"*

Ah Grateful, but I say that all the time. I am an agnostic, not
an atheist. If there is an Almighty out there who created
everything, he is free to write his rules on the face of the moon,
for all of us to see. So far he has never bothered.

I did indeed take some time to understand your religion, as I have
a sense of curiosity. That is why I read "Twenty Three Years".
Last night I read some of the Amazon reader comments about the book
and they largely concurred with what I had found. Dashti wrote
with candour and openness and objectivity, without all the
proselytising that we normally hear from you religious folks.
He also gave me a historical perspective of the whole story, which
matters. Mohammed was clearly a smart and interesting fellow,
despite his lack of education. Dashti certainly praises his many
good points. I can recommend the book to any Westerners who want
to increase their understanding of Islam, why it came about and
what the Koran is all about.

*Your insistance that i am irrational riven with anxiety and seeking certainty ignores everything i have said.*

Not you in particular Grateful, but all people. To understand my
reasoning, you would have to understand a little, how the human
mind works. All people can be irrational at times. All people
can be anxious at times. All people that I know, prefer certainty
over uncertainty. In the brain there is competition going on between
reason and emotion. Every thought is clouded by emotion, if you are
aware of it or not.

All human tribes ever discovered, have come up with some concept
of god, gods etc. Sun gods, moon gods, you name it. Thousands of
them. Given my interest in neuroscience, I questioned why that is
so.

Yep, the classic response from the devoted religionist.

>>...you're belief has no scientific or rational grounds and is a form of escapism. This approach is exactly what you are decrying<<

The insistence that exercising the right not to believe in any one of the many deities on offer, somehow constitutes a "belief".

Thus, in one stroke of the pen, relegating it to the same level of credibility as their own chosen system.

Sorry, grateful, it doesn't work that way.

I wouldn't dream of telling you what to believe or what not to believe. But I do insist that yours is not the only way to look at the world.

As far as this thread is concerned, it was transparent from the start.

You simply tried to develop a theme upon which you could hang your proselytising hat, to tell us all how being a Muslim allows you to voluntarily withdraw from all form of temptations.

It has been pointed out to you that a) this will not solve the problem that you described, since those who volunteer are unlikely to be its cause, and b) that much of the evidence available suggests that the "voluntary" nature of the abstinence involved is highly questionable. The death penalty is quite persuasive, for example.

But your intention here is to preach, rather than to listen. So you find it necessary to hit back, rather than take the discussion on its own merits.

Fair enough, its your thread.

But it does mean that you eventually find yourself in a dead end...

>>It leads to a supremicist and prejudiced mentality. You dare not say: "I don't know" or "I may be wrong"<<

Here's an exercise for you, grateful. It won't take a moment.

Show us evidence from your own posts here, that you have at any point suggested that you "don't know", or "may be wrong".

And have a great day.

@Grateful, “They were not used in the time of the Prophet”.

Two things immediately spring to mind;

1. Religious writers love to exaggerate and sensationalize, don’t they?
2. Less facetious than point one, you are referring to a period steeped in mysticism compared to today in the Western World, though much of that mysticism still exists in Third World countries.

“The third and final verse instructed Muslims to abstain from alcohol and gambling. When this verse was revealed it was reported that the streets were flowing with wine. People just quit the instant they heard the instruction.”

Reported by whom, Reuter’s, CNN or an overwhelmed religious fanatic?

“Why just look at Saudi Arabia? Look at our Muslims neighbours, Indonesia and Malaysia, where the majority of Muslims live, as well as Muslims in Australia.”

Saudi Arabia was just the first Muslim country that came to mind. But since you mentioned Indonesia, then I’ll inform you of beetle nuts, kava juice and the mighty weed, marijuana, are the intoxicants of choice there. Afghanistan, another Muslim country, produces 90% of the world’s heroin supply. And Lebanon produces the highest grade hashish (marijuana resin) in the world, and is where the “water pipe” originates from that we Westerners quaintly term home-made versions of, as a “bong”.

TBC...

“The fact that this does NOT exist (or is very small) among Muslim communities indicates that the demand is simply not there to support it.”

You’re comparing apples with oranges, so let’s put a little perspective on this…

You seem to ignore the fact that Muslim countries are Third World countries. They do not have electricity traversing their countries like we do, and so do not have 2 TV’s in every household for Absolute to sell their Vodka. Nor do they have industrialization to create the disposable income that we have to spend on not only food and shelter, but literally anything we want. While they in contrast, are flat-out putting dinner on the table, let alone a bottle of scotch. And in point of fact, a country like Afghanistan sells heroin to the West so that they CAN put dinner on the table…poppies are a part of their local economy.

And for people that live subsistence lives, there’s little room for even distilling alcohol, since food has a far higher priority, while distilling is also fiddly, time-consuming and requires large amounts of food to make small amounts of alcohol. Survival dictates that the making of alcohol would be stupid and be directly in conflict to survival, except for in those rare times of excess food stocks. And that doesn’t happen often in countries that are basically rock, sand and desert.