Quoting TropicalStormIsaac: Aussie is right, people that drive drunk and kill innocent people should rot in gaol.
Smoking causes more deaths than drunk driving, and since the deaths tend to be long, agonizing, protracted battles with cancers and heart and lung diseases, both of the smoker themselves and other people in some cases, what shall we do with the smokers and the tobacco companies, vendors, transporters, clerks, managers, etc, who participate in propagating this evil?
If drunk drivers should rot in jail, as I also agree they should, then shouldn't smokers rot in jail as well?
They knowingly did something every single day of their lives (for anyone born since the first surgeon general's warning,) which was known to be harmful and deady (since 1985,) therefore they committed an act of negligent homicide, every time they lit a cigarette.
If it wasn't for the invention of Alcohol, we would probably all not be here today.
I highly doubt that, though I've heard some archeologists and such claim so, that civilization was impossible without alcohol, allegedly because of water sanitation issues, but there is no evidence of that.
Besides, although you didn't know this, the claim is obviously false. Now I know you're just repeating what you heard on the history channel, but they're not exactly bright on there.
For example, brewing and distilling require a certain degree of technical knowledge, either by accident or foresight, which did not exist for a large part of paleolithic humanity, and yet people lived in groups, they made stone cities, they prospered well enough that they somehow had enough excess to be sacrificing one another and their animals to their false gods as well.
Thank God for Judaism and Christianity, which helped rid the world of human sacrifice, not that everything they did along the way was correct, because it wasn't necessarily.
Not only did they do just fine before brewing existed, they had more than enough, so that they had time to invent ways to injure themselves and one another in every imaginable degree: human sacrifice, drugs, murder, etc,...
Now how did humans exist in civilization without alcohol? Easy. Their quality of life was actually better in some respects, because they didn't work to support a drug habit.
Some paleolithic cultures may have actually distilled certain foods (in at least one case I know they did,) in order to remove poisons from them.
With alcohol, it's the reverse, they brew or distill to concentrate a poison!
Tee-totalers did just fine for thousands of years.
Nothing else in the world drinks alcohol naturally, except humans, so you contradict yourself, particularly if you're an evolutionist, since monkeys and apes definitely don't. Now showing some example of a guy giving beer to his dog isn't the same thing, because the dog would not have done that had it's drunken master not offered it a substance which does not exist in nature, not in a concentrated form anyway.
Additionally, since more of the food value is lost in the brewing and distilling processes, it's actually a waste of food resources to make alcoholic beverages, in most cases, which contributes to world starvation/hunger issues. The products used to make the alcohol could have been used to feed the hungry in Africa instead, or in some cases the land could have been planted with a crop better suited to food usage and that would have fed the hungry.
So if you both cared about the hungry and fully understood the real issues (I assume you didn't think of this therefore didn't understand,) instead of believing the excuses people give for their less than moral behavior, you would have realized that "alcohol is required for civilization" claim is a lie.
Even if it ever was required at some point in the past, which there is no evidence that such was ever the case and as stated quite the contrary, it certainly is not required today. It's done by careless, often immoral people who put their own selfish experiencial highs above the lives and safety of others.
Comments will take a few seconds to appear.