GET FIREFOX!

THE PAWN SHOP
IS OPEN!

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

YOU SAID WHAT?!

TWEET! TWEET! TWEET!

follow me on Twitter

Search This Blog! Google cent's mindless ramblings

View blog authority

Housekeeping
Use of Alcohol (1A)
The use of alcohol (1)
So you say
heapin' helpin' of hospitality
Who didn't see this coming?
I had a minute
You have a minute?
Since Carla knocked me off ...
The Fruit Salad

Here's the part where I try to avoid getting sued ...

As you undoubtedly noticed, I like comics. I wouldn't call myself a "fan boy" because I don't give a flying FOOM what they are worth. That said, almost all the images on my blog are scanned from comics I own, and it would be frankly impossible to tell you where each one comes from specifically.

Many are © and/or ® Marvel Comics Group, with all rights reserved.

Others are © and/or ® DC Comics, which is an arm of Time/Warner, and not only are all rights reserved but they are a little jealous about it, so if I get "the letter" from them, those images are just going to turn into blank spots until I configure out what to do about that.

There are also the occasional images from Valiant, Image, Defiant, and some indies which I'm not sure even have a name, and they are all also © and/or ®, all rights reserved.

All other images not covered by this disclaimer are the property of their respective owners, and if you are one of those people and you see your image on my blog, tell me what you want me to do about it and I will. No sense making people angry.

Hope that helps.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Beer plus Wine (rabbit trail)

Just as a point of reference, beer sales in the U.S. make up about 60% of all sales of alcoholic beverages. Wine is another 15%, and hard liquor is the balance at 25%.

We need to think about something in those stats: more than half of the fermented beverages sold in the U.S. have less than 6% alcohol by volume, and 75% have less than 11% by volume. If we don't try to pick nits over whether 1st century wine was 5 proof or 3 proof and concede that it was watered down, more than 60% of the alcoholic beverages consumed in the US today are in that same range -- and another 15% are in striking distance.

Which is fine, I guess -- the problem for the prohibitionist is that if 40% of all alcohol being sold in the U.S. is in the category of "strong drink", why aren't 40% of all drinkers causing sociol-political havoc? Not to put too fine a point on this, but 40% is a pretty big minority. The alcohol industry is a $100 billion industry -- meaning that on-average, $333 is spent every year (about a dollar per day) in the U.S. for every man, woman and child inside our borders.

How can it be that, with that much hootch sloshing around, there are only 0.63 traffic accidents per 10,000 motor vehicles registered in the U.S.? How can it be that less than 2% of the total population suffers from alcohol-related liver damage?

The argument that beer and wine are causing social havoc is unsustainable -- because there's no havoc. It is certain -- indisputable -- that alcohol abuse causes some social instability. The question is whether or not someone who uses alcohol is more likely to become a danger to society and a moral scofflaw than not -- and it is equally indisputable that the vast majority of alcohol users are not alcohol abusers. They do not become reckless abandoners of families, and missers of work, and vehicular homocidal maniacs.

But how can this be? Isn't it possible that there's some moral force keeping them from choosing to abuse a privilege? You know: the same one which keeps most of them driving at safe speeds, and practicing ball with their kids in open fields, and eating hamburger rather than Frankburger?

To be as specific as possible, isn't it likely that one of the reasons people can have a drink or two over the course of a couple of hours and not let themselves get blown away is the fruit of the spirit which includes the astounding virtue of self-control -- and against such a thing there is no law?

Think about that. More later.