/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Why are you control freaks so obsessed with banning things people enjoy. Dad didn't love you enough?

>>455170
>banning things people enjoy
Does the police officer enjoy answering a call to a drunk driving incident?
Does the doctor enjoy telling a patient they have alcohol-related liver disease?
Does a family enjoy knowing that a family member will die because of a alcohol-related incident?

Scientists have spent years and decades researching the effects of alcohol; Why do we continue to disregard their findings?

It is time that we obey reality as we have learnt it; We have seen, through the American Republicans during the Covid-19 crisis, what happens when the populace ignores decisive medical advice. Why should alcohol be any different?

>>455171
Does it matter? He's a cop. That's his job.
Same for the doctor. That is their job. They probably don't enjoy telling families their children died of leukemia and yet they do it every single day. People should follow science but they should do so of their own volition. Not to mentuon, again, you are just ignoring that something like drug use is note co located than a narrow minded view of science. There's science that describes the positive benefits of certain use of drugs and alcohol (such as social lubricant) that you intentionally ignore to pish your evangelical world view.

Cope.

>>455172
Is it in society's best interest for the cop to partake in activities that could be more easily preventable?

If society is to pay for a cop's salary and benefits, we must also, as a society, endeavor for that cop to be used only when absolutely necessary.

Deaths by way of alcohol, be it either through driving or falling down the stairs or through a bar fight, are easily preventable by removing the element of alcohol. It is a societal cost when someone is harmed by something that was readily preventable. We can not prevent something presently complicated such as pancreatic cancer or Alzheimer's (although there are contributing factors to both of those illnesses) but where we can prevent unnecessary deaths, we must, as a society, endeavor to prevent them.

Your assertion that there are positive benefits to drugs and alcohol continues to ignore that the cost to society is greater than the benefits that they bestow. For every child born because two people get drunk and procreate, how many people are lost because of alcohol-related car accidents? For every cigarette smoked that calms a person down, how many people fall asleep with a lit cigarette and cause a fire that destroys properties and lives?

As our scientists learn the great hazards of such things like alcohol, we need to abide by their findings regardless of prior cultural preferences.

>>455175
Why does something that could be preventable mean that we must prevent it? You are making an extremely bold assumption here and if you are so stuff and uptight that you think socialism means that people can't get drunk or consume drugs then I wouldn't be dying on the barracades with you anytime soon.

You are just pulling shit right out of your ass because we wont even be using vehicles under our hypothetical socialist society anyways. That is something that really does need to be banned due to emissions and just general inefficiency, but, humans have inalienable rights and you crying like a faggot cause you are to much of a looser to go out and have fun doesn't change that.

What are the societal costs? So because some people are idiots everyone has to suffer is basically what you are saying? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. People should abide by science, again, but, you can't and shouldn't force people to abide by science. That's not socialism that just makes you a faggot. Plenty of research has been done on treatment resistant depression and psychedelic drugs it's clear you just have a bias.

>>455169
>How should we best ban alcohol from society?
So you are trying to get socialists to tell workers they can't have booze under socialism?
Are you trying to sabotage us ?

We are going to fix the material reasons that make people abuse alcohol, and then the problem with drunks will go away as well.

>>455184
Well it will at least be better. It will never go away completely as the reason people turn to drugs isn't totally because of capitalist alienation but also other psychological factors as well.

>>455181
>Why does something that could be preventable mean that we must prevent it?
We prevent airplane crashes by heeding what causes them to crash. We prevent cargo ships from sinking by heeding what causes them to sink. Certainly you aren't suggesting that the working class is not as important.

>we wont even be using vehicles under our hypothetical socialist society anyways.
The use of drunk driving was only an example; Alcohol harms the body (and productivity) regardless of the physical activity.

And for someone to claim that banning alcohol is undesirable but to then posit that banning vehicles isn't?

>So because some people are idiots everyone has to suffer
Everyone IS suffering already! Abuse of alcohol and even the generation of alcohol is not a "victimless crime." Our costs increase in a myriad of ways because of these abuses. We don't need scores of people abusing their freedoms; Merely enough to affect society as a whole. Just look at Covid-19; Not EVERYONE received severe Covid but enough did to shut down the entire global network. Not EVERYONE died of Covid but enough did for there to be serious economic impact, of which we are still feeling the effects today.

If socialism is not heeding best practices for the good of society, then what is? What point is there for learning the rules of nature if we don't try to adhere by them?

If workers are to be the focus of our society, why do we insist upon poisoning them? Or, more specifically, why do you want to poison them? Why do you want to incur more cost upon society than what is necessary?

>>455184
How is it sabotage by improving society? Is it sabotage to make murder illegal? To prevent children from chewing broken glass? Is it sabotage to make crack cocaine and heroin illegal?

There is nothing of merit to alcohol; It is poisonous in many ways to the human body. Simply because it has a slight ancillary usage in social situations is irrelevant.

Capitalism promotes products merely to produce revenue; We should be better than those impulses.

And if banning alcohol is so impossible, then explain how you will fix the material reasons (of which even you must concede that there are many) that make people abuse alcohol?

>>455186
>We prevent airplane crashes by heeding what causes them to crash. We prevent cargo ships from sinking by heeding what causes them to sink. Certainly you aren't suggesting that the working class is not as important.

Not the same thing as an airplane/cargoship and a humanbeing with autonomy are not the same thing. Do you think people are robots are something?

>Alcohol harms the body (and productivity) regardless of the physical activity.


And what business of it is your what I do to/with my own body?

>veryone IS suffering already!

No, people are enjoying life and drinking and having fun. The poor retards consumed by alcoholism; throwing the baby our with the bath water.

>If socialism is not heeding best practices for the good of society, then what is? What point is there for learning the rules of nature if we don't try to adhere by them?


Socialism is about liberation of the individual and freedom from the restrains of capital not your weird daddy state protestant christian ethic bullshit.


This reminds me of talking to that Eugene faggot.

>>455185
>Well it will at least be better. It will never go away completely
The abuse of drugs will go away completely once the alienation from class society subsides. But not all use of substances to modify brain-states is automatically abuse. That sort of puritanism isn't helpful.

>>455186
How is it sabotage by improving society?
Given the choice between:
<Fellow prole join socialism, and we will take away your drink
<Fellow prole join fascism, and you can enjoy your drink
Most people will choose the one that lets them have their drink. It will push people towards fascism and that is sabotage.

You also are not improving society, you are just banning stuff. The effort for improving society is pawned off the individual who now has to figure out how to deal with it. You are basically just saying "I want a better society, now all of you have to change yourself according to my demands"
We know how well prohibition went, the US tried it and the USSR did as well. In both cases people didn't really stop drinking, they just got their alcohol from the mafia. Fermenting plants is dead simple, it would be unenforceable.

To improve society you have to change the environment first and then people will change as well.

>>455189
>Do you think people are robots are something?
I think people are valuable enough to prevent their needless suffering. We know now that alcohol decreases their ability to enjoy themselves and society. It decreases their productivity. It increases costs in more ways than it subtracts.

>And what business of it is your what I do to/with my own body?
The rights of one person ends at the rights of another. Your "right" for alcohol does not equal my right for safe traveling conditions, safe environment, an unencumbered health care system and social protection services.

>No, people are enjoying life and drinking and having fun.
They only think that they are having fun because that is what the corporations tells them what is fun. Is all of this alcohol free? It has a material cost and it has many other costs.

You accuse me of being religious (amongst many other insults) but I am not the one who bows at the altar of corporations, insisting that "fun" and "alcohol" are irreversibly linked together. And who convinced you of that idea?

>Socialism is about liberation of the individual and freedom from the restrains of capital
How are is an individual liberated when they are shackled to past perceptions of what is "sociable" or "fun" through alcohol? All that you have proven is that you are the one shackled to corporations, not me. You are the one addicted to these ideas, you are the one defending the product of these multi-national conglomerates.

Your insults of me hides the weaknesses in your argument. You can not refute the biological damage that alcohol causes on the human body. You can not refute the societal costs that alcohol imposes upon both the individual and the society.

>>455190
>You also are not improving society, you are just banning stuff.
We took the lead out of gasoline. Did that not improve society?
We took the asbestos out of insulation? Did that not improve society?
We added odor to natural gas. Did that not prevent additional horrible tragedies?

Society has an obligation to protect itself from harm. And it has. And will continue to do so. And generations of people have benefited from strong government interventions. Alcohol is no different.

>>455193
why do you just come out as one of those nutcase fundamentalists already? You don't decide what suffering is. Take the history of prohibition as an example and the failures of the war on drugs; People love drinking. suck a cock I have nothing else to say to this inane faggotry.

Kys

>>455169
No troll. Humans have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with yeast, and alcohol is a big part of our lives. You can fuck right off if you think you can ban booze.

It's also been tried before and didn't pan out, so you need to read marx a little bit.

>>455199
Marx himself was a toothless alcoholic wasn't he?

I'm literally out drinking

>>455290
Based

I prefer to wait to genetically engineer ourselves to be immune to its adverse effects. That's the only way, if they couldn't ban it in the 1920s we never will not even muslim countries bother nowadays

The "Devil Bottle" theory of addiction is just old school liberal moralizing debunked by the famous "Rat Park" experiement. Addiction is predicated on several factors like genetics, environment, childhood trauma. While the drug itself is a factor prohibition does nothing to address the other factors. The "War on Drugs" that OP wants has proven to be a catastrophic failure yet he wants more of it. OP as usually is fag and a DEA agent.

You can read an easy to read comic about the "Rat Park" experiment here.
https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/rat-park/#page-1

How does banning alcohol make the working class endearing to your cause OP?

>>455305
These people mistake cause and effect.
If socialism gets build, people will be less alienated, and then they will have less desire to get drunk.
They mistakenly think that it also works the other way, that if people drink less, alienation will go away.

The only kind of drug prohibition that is worth thinking about is banning high potency drugs. So it's very hard to overdose.

>>455304
Right, I don't even see how its an argument at this point? How did these retards get a fucking platform to spew this retarded shit in the first place?

Ignoring the reality that you don't like does not make the reality go away.

Your body does not like alcohol. That's biological reality. Your body hates ingesting a little bit of alcohol. Your body hates ingesting a lot of alcohol. Science has now proven that reality. It's not going to un-prove that reality.

We ban lots of harmful substances throughout the world and for very good reason; Alcohol should be no different.

>>455309
What's bad for me isn't for you to decide.
Once again.

>>455309
Read
>>455304
Prohibition doesn't stop people from drinking alcohol. You can make it in a bathtub. Can you please open one history book about the 1920's.

>>455312
He doesn't want to learn he just hates himself and he's probably some Christ faggot.

>>455313
Or a glowie trying to revive the Mob's bootlegging racket.

>>455309
This is dumb, plenty of things are bad for the body but are not banned. Using social media like you are now is bad for your mental health.
The degree to which something is harmful has to be considered. Not just banning anything with negative health consequences.

Driving a car might be harmful
Driving a bike mght be harmful
Eating fat meals might be harmful
Going to nature might be harmful
Walking on street might be harmful
Going out in winter might be harmful
…but also in summer!

OK…lets ban everything

This OP was brought to you by Pizza Hut

What a piece of shit OP, if I saw you in real life I would spit in your face.

>>455169
I hope all recreational narcotics are banned so people get their rush from exercise and socializing

>>455474
so trve king

Good idea, banning things is the most materialist thing you can do of course! Good idea OP!

>>455169
The topic shouldn't be banning alcohol but questioning it's use in the first place. There are probably some people out there that are only living because they can drink.
As for drinking for fun, question why people aren't taking its dangerous nature seriously.

>>455487
it's simple, it's really none of your business what I do with my own body. Tackling the issues why people abuse drugs though is the correct route.

Your copium is lacking…

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/health/alcohol-brain-shrinkage-wellness/index.html

OP is a Christcuck puritan most likely.

>>455169
lol fuck off you aren't even real

>>455309
>We ban lots of harmful substances throughout the world and for very good reason
yet you take vaccines i bet lol

>>455430
>lets ban everything
they did it with corona con

>>455503
>the cnn talking about brain shrinkage
the irony

We can not even stand up to our bosses yet OP is talking about banning alcohol, get your reality straightened out.

>>455503
From your very own article
>However, the study left a number of questions unanswered, such as a person's cognitive engagement, Gakidou said.

>"I believe that there is sufficient evidence that suggests that brain function decays faster among those that are not engaged in intellectually stimulating activities, either through work or hobbies," she said.
>"My main criticism is that the authors are overinterpreting the findings of their study and drawing conclusions that are not necessarily supported by what is presented in the paper. I do not see a significant trend in their graphs, and so I'm not convinced by the conclusions."