[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Granted, but you'd be limiting personal freedoms too much. Nobody would ever be able to get wasted.

Didn't you bring up this point to make a comparison to my argument that the indoor smoking ban has long-term health benefits? The reason I back the indoor smoking ban is because it protects the health of non-smokers while not asking smokers to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms have to be protected in this country, that's first and foremost for me. But if you can make moderate changes to those freedoms and gain a lot in terms of health for non-smokers, that's a win for the country.

Trying to keep people to one beer an hour, while I agree would be a benefit to society's health, basically takes away all personal freedoms regarding getting bombed. There would be no drunken hookups, no good stories from a night out with your buddies, no bachelor parties, etc. It sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not. That has a big impact on our lives, it would directly affect quality of life. Asking smokers to step outside to light up doesn't have anywhere close to the negative impact on our personal freedoms. It's a simple solution, and it's not asking too much at all.

We did read your other post and its clear that you want to ban smoking for health reasons(which does not effect you life style). The limit on drinks would so that law goes to far. Read you last paragraph on all the thing YOU could not do. You say how it would impact your life how about the non-drinker who gets kill from a drunk leaving a bar.