A Proto-Objectivist Defense of Teetotaling?
by Luke Setzer
During my transition from Christianity to Objectivism in late 1988, I found myself repeatedly engaged in rationalistic justifications of common Christian dogmas. This one examines alcohol consumption. As Joseph Rowlands explained at SOLOC 4, the "all or nothing" fallacy demonstrates itself here. I published this column in October 1988 in the North Carolina State University newspaper, the Technician. It only received two responses, one supporting my critiques and the other challenging my "all or nothing" approach. I confess now that some studies support positive health effects of moderate red wine consumption, but remain skeptical of the idea that drinking to the point of reducing inhibitions offers egoistic benefits.
A common weekend activity at this university and elsewhere is the consumption of massive quantities of alcohol. Wine coolers and beer bottles appear frequently, though not always legally, in dorm refrigerators. Beer kegs, abolished from residence halls, still act as primary fountains of entertainment at many off-campus parties. The stench of beer and the grotesque litter of beer cans were a common experience at the springtime rock concerts of West Campus Jam and Central Campus Craze. Wolfstock has curbed much of the litter problem, but drunken shenanigans are still for many a concert corequisite.
For still more students, this tomfoolery is a "necessary" weekend excursion. But the insane quest to maximize pleasure on the weekends via liquor in spite of the maximum pain of Monday morning hangovers deserves only loud ridicule and damning mockery. This condemnation is founded on hard scientific fact, disturbing statistics, and clear common sense.
The damaging effects of alcohol abuse are well-known. "Sticky" blood cells that can cause clots and strokes, liver damage resulting from alcohol poisoning, and psychological addiction are three immediate health risks caused by over-indulgence. Innocent bystanders who come in contact with the abuser encounter immediate danger as well: drunken driving causes half of all traffic accidents and fatalities, while curbed judgment and lost inhibitions lead to deliberate acts of violence, such as rape, assault, and murder.
For some, alcohol addiction is almost immediate; for others, a mid-life crisis leads to "hitting the bottle." Rather than deal with emotional difficulties in a mature, responsible, and constructive manner, numerous college students attempt to escape into the nether world of beer, wine coolers, screwdrivers, and pina coladas during the week as well as on the weekend. Rather than exhilarate the body and clear the mind with vigorous physical activities such as racquetball, running, and swimming, they degenerate the body and cloud the mind with alcohol. This self-destructive habit may enter remission after graduation, but it still lays in waiting, searching for a troubling psychological crisis in which to rear its ugly head.
Alcohol shows itself to be vastly more damaging than tobacco. And yet, the United States has chosen to ban cigarette ads from television while continuing beer and wine commercials. It is doubtful that anyone has been arrested or killed due to driving under the influence of tobacco smoke.
Commercials are now aired that urge viewers with phrases like "don't drink and drive," "know when to say when," and friends don't let friends drive drunk." But these commercials deny the judgment-curbing power of booze: a person who has had several drinks at a downtown bar has blurred his decision-making powers, and just cannot tell when to stop. This now murky-minded individual, having no friends to take him home and still believing in the reliability of his reflexes, could hop into his car, buzz out onto the freeway, kill a hitchhiker, wake up in jail the next morning, and only then remember that he should have "known when to say when." Obviously, "when" is the moment before the first sip, before any mind-muddling has occurred.
Even if the life-threatening aspects of alcohol abuse are ignored, there are still plenty of healthy reasons left to leave the bottle or can alone. Some examples will attest to this:
- Disgusting pools of vomit are not an uncommon weekend sight on the dormitory stairs, and janitors are not required to remove them.
- One poor student here was arrested for disturbing the peace in a local A&P store when, in a drunken state, he urinated in the store sink.
- One sophomore was so sloshed that he was completely helpless as several of his lady friends painted his body with nail polish and papered his room. The same man was barfing up the previous night's supper the next morning, and could do little more than lay around in bed that day, as though he had the flu.
- A young lady, returning to Central Campus from Wolfstock 1987, had to be supported under each arm by two of her sober friends because she was too drunk to stand up. With her perceptions of reality blurred, she insisted, "Really, I'm not that drunk. Really. I just can't walk too well right now, that's all."
Every potential alcoholic begins with a first swig; if he never samples the liquid, it is impossible for him to become an addict. This is not a statement of condemnation, but one of simple and unpleasant fact. Every case of substance addiction can be traced to the addict's first use of that substance.
Clearly, everyone would do well to avoid drinking altogether.
College students, take heed: The mouth of that bottle is the barrel of a gun aimed down your throat. You may think for the moment that you are safe, that you can continue to escape into the land of Peter Pan on the weekends. But each shot of booze is buckshot in the gun of alcohol abuse, a gun that could go off at the height of your career and leave your brains all over the wall.
Discuss this Article (23 messages)
|
