I don't like alcohol. I never have, and I don't foresee liking it in the future. Most of the drinks alcohol can be found in taste awful. I have never enjoyed the flavor of an alcoholic beverage more than its non-alcoholic counterpart. My dislike goes further, however. I have a disdain for intoxicating substances in general; one: they make me feel ill, and two: I don't like anything that makes my grasp of the real world more tenuous. Everything is topped off with the semi-consciousness-permeating fact that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs we know of. It is really easy for people to overdose from alcohol after consuming intoxicating amounts, which means that it will likely happen oftener than for other drugs, even just comparing death rates to use rates. Of course, sheer use over time causes plenty of health issues as well, such as brain and liver damage.
I also don't oppose the imposition of a minimum drinking age, and I even think that twenty-one is a fine age for that; of course, I think that people shouldn't be able to join the military until at least twen-ty-one to twenty-five. The point is that I am not opposed to preventing teen drinking. In the town where I live, however, an all-night after-prom was recently hosted, and a friend of mine made the interesting point that having teens stay up all night and then drive home could potentially create a threat at least as large as drinking. Sleep deprivation can impair performance as much as alcohol, and the kind of sleep deprivation that all-night events create could be up to twenty-four hours of wakefulness. This brought an interesting question to bear: How much can be justifiably risked or sacrificed to promote sobriety in general or teen sobriety specifically? To me, it seems that it is completely unacceptable to risk more lives and healths than would be endangered by alcohol to avoid alcohol. At the same time, it seems obvious that alcohol can have a much more destructive influence over people than simple driving risks, and so that can't be the only measure inspected.
I have to make sure that I fight against my own bias on this issue, but at the same time, I don't want to bend over too far backward to avoid my bias. I think it should behoove groups promoting sobriety to examine their methods for efficacy and safety. We certainly don't want more endangerment coming out of endeavors to reduce it.
I also don't oppose the imposition of a minimum drinking age, and I even think that twenty-one is a fine age for that; of course, I think that people shouldn't be able to join the military until at least twen-ty-one to twenty-five. The point is that I am not opposed to preventing teen drinking. In the town where I live, however, an all-night after-prom was recently hosted, and a friend of mine made the interesting point that having teens stay up all night and then drive home could potentially create a threat at least as large as drinking. Sleep deprivation can impair performance as much as alcohol, and the kind of sleep deprivation that all-night events create could be up to twenty-four hours of wakefulness. This brought an interesting question to bear: How much can be justifiably risked or sacrificed to promote sobriety in general or teen sobriety specifically? To me, it seems that it is completely unacceptable to risk more lives and healths than would be endangered by alcohol to avoid alcohol. At the same time, it seems obvious that alcohol can have a much more destructive influence over people than simple driving risks, and so that can't be the only measure inspected.
I have to make sure that I fight against my own bias on this issue, but at the same time, I don't want to bend over too far backward to avoid my bias. I think it should behoove groups promoting sobriety to examine their methods for efficacy and safety. We certainly don't want more endangerment coming out of endeavors to reduce it.
No comments:
Post a Comment