Fuss on alcohol clouds Istanbul music festival

[Targon]

At last he's banned, I guess we get rid of most of the trolls

 

[Zulkarneyn]

why is tesla suddenly banned?

 

[TurAr]

why is tesla suddenly banned?

Did you read his posts before deleted?

 

[Zulkarneyn]

Did you read his posts before deleted?

No, but if it was his posts, it was damn fast

 

[TurAr]

The speed should give you an idea how idiotic they were...

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Drinking alcohol does not mean you are not muslim. What kind of logic is that? It is people's personal choice, whatever they want to do. I personally hate alcohol, that is both because Islam forbids it and because it destroys families, especially poor ones and i hate the stink. We can say those muslims who drink alcohol are not very pious but if they say they are Muslim, it is between Allah and himself/herself.

I am a secularist despite that I have some conflicted views about alcohol and at times I can appear to be ambigous. I confess I do drink in certain circumstances. At any rate I will list my views about this subject and will try to avoid bringing religious law and look at this just from the temporal aspect:-

1. The argument about limitation of free choice or intrusion holds no water. The only place where you will get 'free choice' is some jungle in Africa where there is no law. You can almost do anything you choose without any limitation or check. But in civilized socities we live under a basket of restrictions even on what we can do to our own bodies.

2. I live in UK, the moment I wake up every action I take is subject to limitation or intrusion of some kind. I can't walk out naked, I can't take heroin, I can't play loud music in my house, I can't build a extention to my house without planning law, I can't even park my car where I want to, I can't smoke weed, I can't take certain hormone drugs to pump my muscles out, I can't drive my car over 30mph in town, this is my body but I can't sell my kidney and hell when the time comes I can't even tell another person to help me leave this world at a time of my choosing. Should I have accident and end up a vegetable I can't even tell the Doctor to switch off my ventilator because I don't want to live anymore.

And in some places I can't even argue against the Holocaust or I will be accused of Anti-Semitism. My point is people have to realize we already live in a society which limits our freedoms. Maybe in Somalia or Niger your are free but thats about it. In civilized societies just about everything is controlled or regulated.

3. Without a doubt alcohol destroys families. Some weekends I do go out drinking and like most guy's I am hoping to score a women. A drunk women [ or guy ] will be relatively free from inhibitions and therefore easy to 'bed'. Many have been [not that I was bothered at the time] married or have children at home and no doubt this behaviour is going to have consequences onthe family stability and it does. In UK social services are heavily involved with families [ I have a friend who works as a social worker and I hear horrible stories ] and all too often alchohol has played a heavy hand [mother might be alcoholic and children are taken into care of the state] in wrecking of familes with it's long term effects on children etc.

4. Violent drunken crime is another by product of drinking culture. Go to any British town on Friday or Saturday and you will see Police and Ambulance Service taxed to the limit.

5. The number of drink related accidents [ driving etc ]or injuries sustained as a result of aggressive behaviour is evident at any A & E Ward at any local hospital in UK on the weekends. Inaddition serious long term damage to liver leading to cirrhosis disease is common in UK.

In fact alcohol causes more social damage to individuels, families and deaths than other banned hardcore drug in UK. Alcohol is also a drug like any other drugs, heroin, cannabis etc. The only reason why it is not banned is because society has accepted it. It would be impossible to restrict or ban alcohol in UK now because it has become a central feature of this culture.

Like I said before I also drink but if truth be told society would be better off if alcohol was restricted or even banned. In countries where alcohol has not permeated into the very core of society I would strongly support it's continued restriction. The reason could be qualified on temporal reasons as I listed above or if your a Muslim on religious grounds.

Without a doubt this matter has to be looked at very carefully and each country has to decide after weighing the pros and cons what it wants.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

You are confusing alcoholics and social drinkers. Alcoholism is a very very bad addiction which must be cured there's no arguement in there. I think you must read my post again.

and @armstrong did ayone tell you, you talk too damn much?

Seriously, you should attend sensitivity training sessions.

 

[LegionnairE]

@atanz I don't think you can blame alcohol for whatever crimes committed by drunk. If people aren't responsible enough to turn their life around eventually they find something to screw up. Alcohol is just a tool. I can't let my government to take away my freedoms because of unreliable people.

People blamed Rap music and violent computer games in 90s and this is just as stupid. People are assaulting police and damaging property after big football matches and I'd prefer football to be banned. Doesn't mean this kind of logic is healthy.


No. People has to learn how to enjoy life like decent, honorable men. If they can't enjoy the freedoms they have, (without damaging and violating others) it must be taken from them individually.

MOD EDIT

 

[Indus Pakistan]

^^^

Not all social drinkers graduate to alcoholics but almost all alcoholics were at one time social drinkers. Alcoholics are a sub set of the drinking population.

Alcohol is a addictive drug at par with Tabacco. Cannabis or even LSD are less addictive than Alcohol. Furthermore Cannabis, LSD, Ecstacy present less physical harm to the human body than alcohol yet all these drugs are banned in UK. The explanation behind this contradiction is social mores and culture.

In UK alcohol is a central feature of society therefore it would be almost impossible to ban alcohol. For any law to have traction there has to be some public moral support but in UK that would not be the case. We have had the Prohibition in USA that failed. Most Muslim countries have the advantage that their cultures are not yet formed by the pro alcohol lobby so are able to even ban/restrict alcohol.

Of course some people will still drink but no law works 100% of time on 100% of the people. Cannabis if used in small amounts [responsibly] is fine but problem is if it has unfettered public access many would end up abusing it.

@LegionaireE

I appreciate your point of view but everything you said could also be applied to (i) Cannabis (ii) Heroin (iii) LSD and lot of other banned things. One could argue that since my body belongs to me I should have right to consume or inhale anything I want to, after all if it hurts, it will hurt me not society. My body, my life and my chioice. So why should society ban so many things? Should individuels [adults] have absolute right to make their own choices on everything?

I would like to point out here that I am a drinker but I am just pointing out the contradictions relating to this subject and that I recognize these. For now anyway until the next ...... !!!

So how do you rationalize that? Where do you draw the line?

 

[airmarshal]

You make a valid point and i completely agree. Alcohol should be banned, or better yet, more restrictions should be imposed on purchase of alcoholic beverages such as increased tax and legal age of drinking should be in the forties IMHO.

You can't completely ban alcohol otherwise bootleggers and moonshiners will make their own illegal business.

In an islamic state, alcohol is banned. Now I might offend some people here but thats a fact. Once you declare you are a muslim, you agree to abide by the tenets of islam. You need read the fine print, man. You cant say you are a muslim and you will lead a life in youre own way. There is no picking and choosing.

 

[LegionnairE]

@Atanz

If the substance is extremely addictive like heroin nobody must consume it, addiction isn't a way of life, it's a way to die. But also a certain percentage of prescribed meds are consistent of addictive substances. Sometimes even weed can be used as medicine in certian psychiatric conditions. And Alcohol can be used in decontamination for example.

It is addiction that should be dealt with, not the meds. Government may force treatment on addicts even if they don't want it. I have no problem with that. But taking away the thing i consume few times a year will not make the world a better place.

And, Irresponsible behaviour such as drunk driving may be punished by lifetime denial of procurement and consumption of alcohol for individuals. And whoever attempt to provide them with such substances may also be punished.

There are many ways to get rid of addiction from society without using extreme measures. If the government seeks them they'll eventually adopt one. But if they want to enforce the sharia they can keep wishing because it's not gonna happen.

 

[Deno]

^^^

Not all social drinkers graduate to alcoholics but almost all alcoholics were at one time social drinkers. Alcoholics are a sub set of the drinking population.

Alcohol is a addictive drug at par with Tabacco. Cannabis or even LSD are less addictive than Alcohol. Furthermore Cannabis, LSD, Ecstacy present less physical harm to the human body than alcohol yet all these drugs are banned in UK. The explanation behind this contradiction is social mores and culture.

In UK alcohol is a central feature of society therefore it would be almost impossible to ban alcohol. For any law to have traction there has to be some public moral support but in UK that would not be the case. We have had the Prohibition in USA that failed. Most Muslim countries have the advantage that their cultures are not yet formed by the pro alcohol lobby so are able to even ban/restrict alcohol.

Of course some people will still drink but no law works 100% of time on 100% of the people. Cannabis if used in small amounts [responsibly] is fine but problem is if it has unfettered public access many would end up abusing it.

@LegionaireE

I appreciate your point of view but everything you said could also be applied to (i) Cannabis (ii) Heroin (iii) LSD and lot of other banned things. One could argue that since my body belongs to me I should have right to consume or inhale anything I want to, after all if it hurts, it will hurt me not society. My body, my life and my chioice. So why should society ban so many things? Should individuels [adults] have absolute right to make their own choices on everything?

I would like to point out here that I am a drinker but I am just pointing out the contradictions relating to this subject and that I recognize these. For now anyway until the next ...... !!!

So how do you rationalize that? Where do you draw the line?

I know that most of our people ( People of East, I know it sounds a lot like LOTR ) doesn't understand individual rights as much as Anglo-Saxon Scandinavian and Germanic people, its not implented on our society as theirs, but you already answered your own questions yourself.

It's that individual's body and life. Nobody has the right to dictate their moral, political or life values on others. Most democratic thing to do is increasing taxes on alcohol, tobacco and other harmful drugs because as social states, state has the responsiblity to care for sick people even the substance abusers so they should pay for their sickness caused by their own abuse by themselves and they already do by incredibly high taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

In an islamic state, alcohol is banned. Now I might offend some people here but thats a fact. Once you declare you are a muslim, you agree to abide by the tenets of islam. You need read the fine print, man. You cant say you are a muslim and you will lead a life in youre own way. There is no picking and choosing.

There is a wonderful understanding between Turks, business with Allah about your sins and not abiding by Allah's rules is between you and Allah and noone else. Noone can tell others that they are not good muslim, you are not the judge of people's behaviours, according to quran the judge is Allah and you should remember that well.

 

[Armstrong]

I know that most of our people ( People of East, I know it sounds a lot like ) doesn't understand individual rights as much as Anglo-Saxon Scandinavian and Germanic people, its not implented on our society as theirs, but you already answered your own questions yourself.

It's that individual's body and life. Nobody has the right to dictate their moral, political or life values on others. Most democratic thing to do is increasing taxes on alcohol, tobacco and other harmful drugs because as social states, state has the responsiblity to care for sick people even the substance abusers so they should pay for their sickness caused by their own abuse by themselves and they already do by incredibly high taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

That is so contradictory on so many levels, Deno ! If it is valid to assert that no one has the right to dictate their moral, political or life-values (dude what does this mean ?) on others then one would also have to accept that the very concept of 'democracy' is inherently flawed because in it thats exactly what we do ! In an Islamist country like Pakistan where the majority of Pakistanis want some sort of imposition of the Shariah isn't imposing their will on those who maybe called Secularists or belonging to a different belief system altogether also democratic yet an 'imposition' none the less; similarly in Turkey you're doing the same thing to Islamists and others who'd want some sort of Islamic Polity even if they're not Islamists. And this goes well beyond 'political ideology'.

Similarly if we're going to talk about 'individual choices' is it also not self-contradictory from a principled point of view if we're asserting that on one hand let an individual do whatever he or she wills with 'their' life and yet we ban drugs, we have laws against suicides, we don't by and large approve of euthanasia, one might even assert that aborting a baby right after its been delivered should be a mother's prerogative and yet we somehow say that if its one minute before the delivery then its ok but otherwise not, we don't allow underage sex under the pretense that he or she isn't mature enough to make that decision without considering the fact that who are we to make that call ? Why not let them decide on their own even if they're underage ? Why is the age of a said person the determinant for the quality of their decision and aren't we also imposing our decision on them by drawing a line for them by saying that their cognitive abilities aren't upto date ? Additionally why let the parents decide on behalf of their children ? Why not let the children decide these things on their own even if the decisions seem to be wrong ? Its their right after all ? And if not then why do the parent's get the right to decide these things...? Simply because they've given birth ? What prerogative does that bestow on them ? Why can't the society decide on these things in preference to the parents ? One might even argue that the collective wisdom of (say!) the Union Council may come up with better decisions ? Though one might argue further that aren't we participating in an imposition also ? And there are a plethora of other areas where we draw the line...why ? Why do we - the society - suddenly give our self the 'right' to make these decisions...? To draw these lines...why ? Could it be because these 'rights' that you talk about as if they're some kind of a hallowed thing are little more than things that we 'made up' ? Could it be that it makes just as much 'sense' or its just as 'correct' to come up with drastically different 'red-lines' then the ones that you mentioned ? Could it be that its just as 'logical' and 'right' to say that there really isn't anything worth protecting about these 'individual freedoms' ? Could it, Deno ? Could it be ?

Similarly if one can argue that its the 'most democratic' thing to do thus..., then isn't it equally valid to assert that 'democracy' by its very nature is 'Popular Will exercised by the Elected Representatives of the People' and if that is the truth that wouldn't it be equally 'correct', 'reasonable' and 'logical' to come up with a completely different set of socio-political-economic and legal paradigms on behalf of the People, one that may well be repugnant to this liberalism that we so ardently espouse. Which is to say if the 'democratic process' is a strong determinant of 'right and wrong' then how is a democratically elected government that enshrines, in its constitution, a stifling of the so-called 'civil liberties' any better or worse of than one that doesn't ?

 

[Selim I]

Since the teachings of those religions have been put in books. Books full with religious do's and don'ts.



In my opinion I have the right. I just think those men are hypocrites

Come on.. Which of us is a Perfect Muslim or which of us is a Perfect Human who makes no mistakes in life?
Every human has a weak spot. And in Islam, as mentioned many times before, drinking alchohol is strictly forbidden, but this doesn't make you a "Kafir" (none-believer), this makes you a sinner. And God also says in the Quran that he forgives everything (except Shirk). So no need to interfere here, it is between God and that human, since you don't have a Sharia country.

__________
legionaire, turar and the rest of them:
About the topic. I think it is a proper ban, because as stated in the article, the biggest sponsor is Efes Pilsen and that alone makes alot of youngsters and underaged people drink. This is against the "secular" law in Turkey. It's not forcing Islam on people, this is forcing secular law on people, same thing.

Many of you says it is not a sincere act by AKP banning this festival, how do you know that? Just because it is AKP you think it is unsincere.

I heard cigarettes are getting banned in New Zealand, becuse it is extremely harmful. Alcohol is also harmful and destroys social harmony, i wouldn't be against banning both alcohol and smoke in Turkey, in fact i would be really glad if something like that happened.

If you banned cigarettes in Turkey, people would say "why are you forcing Islam on us?". But when New Zealand is doing such thing, they stay quite, no comment. This shows the Islamaphobia inside some people.

 

[Targon]

I support the ban of cigarette in certain indoor locations since its effects not only smoker.

Thats not really Islamaphobia, thats the reality that prohibitionist acts are not coming from their sensitive feelings toward health etc., its coming from their religious feelings, denying it is equal to lying.