Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indonesia will be “alcohol free” soon ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    When I read Dan's contributions I think of the late actor, Marlon Brando, when he said:- "Though I didn't realise it then, I was beginning to discover one of the realities of life: members of almost every group in human society try hard to convince themselves that they are superior to other groups, whether they are religions, nations, neighbouring tribes in rain forests or members of rival suburban country clubs"

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mr Fizzywig View Post
      I can't actually remember the last time I was drunk, even though I do regularly consume alcohol
      Yes, that has happened to me, once or twice (historically). Couldn't remember much, anyway.


      While some people feel that a life of prayer and inner contemplation is a rewarding and noble way to spend your life, the rest of us just want to live our lives, have friends, socialise and spend time together with our family. The moderate use of alcohol does not affect a persons ability to perform these functions, infact in some cases it enhances them, again the key word is IN MODERATION.

      Should we provide non judegemtal support for those who develop alcohol related problems. Yes
      And have we done this? Provided non-judgmental support, that is, and strongly encouraged (no, not in an FPI way) moderation when it was very clearly called for, needed, and not being exercised? Just curious.

      Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence as well, as stuck on top of it. When I was past the point of moderation, I would not listen to a single word from anyone telling me that this was problematic (both for myself and for others), though it certainly was.

      I recognize emphatically that we cannot change the mind or will of another person, we cannot heal them, we cannot "bring them to the light" if they are unwilling to see it. This has to come from inside each person, the willingness to change or to perceive themselves. Although many wanted to help me, their help was meaningless so long as I refused to see it as helpful. This is undeniably true.

      But when I finally found myself on the relatively "sober side" of the equation, and saw others floundering in the same dire straits I had been in, yes, I tried to help, and the question of "non-judgmental" is a tricky one. Non-judgmental in a moral sense, yes, I agree. But one cannot be so "non-judgmental" that one allows the one in trouble to avoid and escape taking responsibility for his or her own actions and, more importantly, his or her mindset and attitude. Sometimes strong words, and even strong actions, are required. Whether they have the desired effect is very much in doubt, but the attitude of "come on mate, let's have another round or three, it's only the tenth of the month and your paycheck's not gone yet" will certainly not "get her done".

      I agree on the points that alcohol abuse 1) is a relative concept, and 2) is not a pathology in itself, but a symptom of something being broken inside the works of a person. It is that inner malfunction that needs to be addressed, in order to make the negative symptoms lessen or even disappear.


      (eta) To elaborate a bit on the bigger picture, I am not personally in favor of governmental bans on alcohol (or tobacco) and I am generally an advocate of free choice and personal responsibility. I agree to some extent with some of the posters who have said that one's ability to resist temptations as a demonstration or exercise of faith (or for any other reasons) should not be based in removing the temptations altogether (I would apply this, to some extent, to women's freedoms in dress, also: as the analogy that having alcohol available leads to an irresistible temptation is similar to saying that visual exposure of the physical attractiveness of women creates an irresistible temptation to "have them" by any means necessary... this is bogus and completely void of responsibility).

      I am Muslim, but I still drink alcohol on occasion, as I have noted numerous times. I am also (see above) someone who has a history of alcohol abuse. I have never bought into the "disease model" of alcohol dependence as constructed by Western medicine. I believe in a more holistic model and I see alcohol abuse, like abuse of narcotics and other substances or even many other destructive behavior patterns, as symptomatic of psychological or emotional problems within the individual. I was able to significantly modify my behavior in regard to intake of alcohol gradually, over a long period of time, without therapy or "rehab", without AA or anything of that sort, and this contradicts the "disease" model's thinking. It is a psychological process, and those are complex animals. I recognize that medical research shows some individuals do have a genetic predisposition to alcohol dependence. In other words, it is their "destiny" to encounter difficulties with dependence on alcohol, unless they can manage to avoid it altogether.

      My religious belief has played a part in my increasing modification and moderation of my alcohol consumption, although it was already well in progress before I entered Islam. The fact that most alcohol (beer) available in Indonesia is basically bog-piss plays into it as well, I have to admit. It wouldn't bother me to see people drinking alcohol while I am fasting any more than it bothers me to see them eating or drinking water. It bothers me even less to simply know that they are eating or drinking or doing whatever, somewhere where I am not and where I can't see them. If they are not Muslim, they are free to eat and drink, when I am not, it's that simple. It happens every day at my place of employment during Ramadan. The majority of teachers and students in my school are not Muslim and they carry on as usual. They do show respect, for the most part, for the minority who are fasting, but when colleagues tell me "Sorry" or "Permisi', when eating or drinking in front of me when they know I am fasting, I just tell them there is no need to apologize or feel uncomfortable, and I mean it.

      However, Indonesia as a state and its "democratic" government has a right to determine the rules and regulations about consumption and sale of alcohol or anything else as it sees fit, and has no obligation to cater to the desires of foreigners. If the government decides to ban cheese, I would be disappointed, as I like cheese. I would have to either find a way to illegally obtain and consume cheese, at the risk of detection and sanction, or go to another country where cheese is allowed, or else give up cheese altogether. Them's the breaks, kid. But I think Indonesian democracy does try to find a balance between the ideals of a significant percentage of the majority and those of the minority, and I expect that will continue. I don't think alcohol (or pork) will be subject to a nationwide ban anytime soon, but the former, at least, might happen eventually.
      Last edited by Mister Bule; 19-07-14, 23:35.
      [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Warden: "What we got here ... is failure to communicate."

      The Dude: "Oh yeah? Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."[/FONT]

      Comment


      • #63
        Dan, from your hysterical chest beating posts you sound like you could really use a stiff drink.

        Your pallet probably wouldn't be able to handle it but I recommend an 18 year macallan, straight, just a tot, in a glencarn snifter glass. Enjoy the beautiful work of art that is hand selected oloroso sherry oak casks, fashioned from macallans own wood stocks in Spain, sent to Scotland and filled with the perfectly balanced distilled nectar from the majestic river Spey. Put to sleep for no less than 18 years and kept in an ideal climate in macallans cellars, at which point the master blender will decide if it's ready for bottling. I have a bottle at home and in fact it was the drink I shared with the former president habibie's son at his PAs birthday party he organised. I also have a bottle of the 25 year at home which is probably the best whiskey in the world, I haven't opened it yet as it's about $1000 a bottle so perhaps when my dad reaches retirement we'll crack the bastard open. What idiot would want to ban this masterpiece of a drink?!? Just because YOU an a few other pricks in this world can't control their drinking habits don't go and spoil it for the rest of us normal folk.
        Last edited by Donting101; 19-07-14, 23:09.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Donting101 View Post
          Dan, from your hysterical chest beating posts you sound like you could really use a stiff drink.

          Your pallet probably wouldn't be able to handle it but I recommend an 18 year macallan, straight, just a tot, in a glencarn snifter glass. Enjoy the beautiful work of art that is hand selected oloroso sherry oak casks, fashioned from macallans own wood stocks in Spain, sent to Scotland and filled with the perfectly balanced distilled nectar from the majestic river Spey. Put to sleep for no less than 18 years and kept in an ideal climate in macallans cellars, at which point the master blender will decide if it's ready for bottling. I have a bottle at home and in fact it was the drink I shared with the former president habibie's son at his PAs birthday party he organised. I also have a bottle of the 25 year at home which is probably the best whiskey in the world, I haven't opened it yet as it's about $1000 a bottle so perhaps when my dad reaches retirement we'll crack the bastard open. What idiot would want to ban this masterpiece of a drink?!? Just because YOU an a few other pricks in this world can't control their drinking habits don't go and spoil it for the rest of us normal folk.
          I'm up for snifter of one of those, just give me a bell! Speyside malts are a beautiful thing. I can only afford to drink Glen Rothes when I can get my hands on it.
          "He who has no manners has no knowledge..."

          Comment


          • #65
            Saudi Arabia:
            "150,000 cases of spirits, most of it Scotch whisky, are smuggled
            into the country every year, with resulting profits of $200 million. Industry experts believe that 70 percent is consumed by Saudis and the rest by expatriates... ...80 percent of the smuggled alcohol comes from the United Arab Emirates. Another 18 percent arrives by the tiny Persian Gulf island of Bahrain, via the causeway linking it to Saudi Arabia." A bottle of whisky (Johnnie Walker Black Label) can fetch $200. Expatriates making bootleg alcohol claim to earn $3000 per week.

            And what would happen in Indonesia? The Wild West (or east). They can't even enforce their most basic laws. The police are useless and susceptible to bribes, as are local officials. Look at Kota in Jakarta, everywhere serving alcohol will just become an extension of that. The price increase to cater for the bribes will just be passed down to the consumer, the consumer of which will still consume one way or the other. A Pathetic motion to try and put through.

            Going back to the Arabs from the lands of Islam, we just left Bangkok yesterday and after a trip to 'little Arabia' for a curry which also just so happens to be next to the biggest red light district in Bangkok (Nana) which also specialises in lady-boys (a well known favourite of the Arabs), we can confirm that the place was crawling with them (Arabs), girls (or lady-boys) in tow. Lots escaping Ramadan in Saudi this time of year. Disgusting sleaze bags they all are
            Last edited by Donting101; 19-07-14, 23:40.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Donting101 View Post
              ust because YOU an a few other pricks in this world can't control their drinking habits

              Perhaps you could apply a wee thimble full of discretion and courtesy in your posts, or would that be requiring too much "self-moderation"? Ironic that alcohol consumption has an obvious influence on the tenor and uh, flavor of your posts, and helps to reveal the nastier side of your personal character, as well as, perhaps, some of the underpinning psychological issues ...
              [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Warden: "What we got here ... is failure to communicate."

              The Dude: "Oh yeah? Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."[/FONT]

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mr Fizzywig View Post
                I'm up for snifter of one of those, just give me a bell! Speyside malts are a beautiful thing. I can only afford to drink Glen Rothes when I can get my hands on it.
                Ill give you an honest hand and heart tip. The 18 macallan is about £120, which is steep and it's the surge in the Asian market which has caused the price to be so high, some say overpriced, I say it is a unique dram which is of such quality that you can't really price it, it's worth whatever it is, it's a gorgeous dram.. BUT

                The next closest dram, and I mean it's bloody almost identical aside from a few refinements, is the Glendronach 18 year. It is an absolute STUNNER of a dram, and HALF THE PRICE OF THE MACALLAN!

                http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-9732.aspx

                get it now while it's under £60. It's a relatively new whiskey, as the company went under then came back again. It will go up in price once the word gets out, that is the way will all whiskeys and why all the Japanese whiskey of a similar age is over £100 minimum now. The stocks have just dwindled and the price rocketed. Get this now while it's cheap, it will blow your brains out and you will have the pleasure of having a real connoisseurs dram in your cabinet to pull out from time to time. It is a really fuck-off whiskey without breaking the bank

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Donting101 View Post
                  Dan, from your hysterical chest beating posts you sound like you could really use a stiff drink.

                  Your pallet probably wouldn't be able to handle it but I recommend an 18 year macallan, straight, just a tot, in a glencarn snifter glass. Enjoy the beautiful work of art that is hand selected oloroso sherry oak casks, fashioned from macallans own wood stocks in Spain, sent to Scotland and filled with the perfectly balanced distilled nectar from the majestic river Spey. Put to sleep for no less than 18 years and kept in an ideal climate in macallans cellars, at which point the master blender will decide if it's ready for bottling. I have a bottle at home and in fact it was the drink I shared with the former president habibie's son at his PAs birthday party he organised. I also have a bottle of the 25 year at home which is probably the best whiskey in the world, I haven't opened it yet as it's about $1000 a bottle so perhaps when my dad reaches retirement we'll crack the bastard open. What idiot would want to ban this masterpiece of a drink?!? Just because YOU an a few other pricks in this world can't control their drinking habits don't go and spoil it for the rest of us normal folk.
                  Eh?

                  Put this into perspective, as my posts have hardly been "hysterical" nor "chest beating." If you had any other product or substance that killed that many people, what would become of that substance? Let's say I put a new product on the market, Danohol, that is a runaway success consumed by 2 billion people. Unfortunately, Danohol is also implicated in the deaths of over 3 million of those people. What do you think government bodies like the FDA would do to Danohol? THEY'D BAN IT!

                  The amusing part of all of this, for me, is that most of the same voices involved in this "well, you CAN'T ban alcohol... it's too good to give up!" crap are pretty much the same people who always say "why the fuck are guns legal? that's dumb! they kill people!"

                  Also, I can control my drinking habits. I was never a big drinker. I never saw the allure. I can comprehend the desire to have a drink to "unwind." I can also comprehend the cost of such beverages and math simply isn't on the side of people who want to keep it lawful.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Here, an example of the "long arm" of the law in "nanny government."

                    http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/.../ucm179871.htm

                    "In July, researchers at the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation reported 24 cases of rare valvular disease in women who took the “fen-phen” combination therapy. FDA alerted medical doctors that it had received nine additional reports of the same type, and requested all health care professionals to report any such cases to the agency’s MedWatch program (1-800-FDA-1088/fax 1-800-FDA- 0178) or to the respective pharmaceutical manufacturers.
                    Subsequently, FDA received 66 additional reports of heart valve disease associated mainly with “fen-phen.” There were also reports of cases seen in patients taking only fenfluramine or dexfenfluramine. FDA requested that the manufacturers of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine stress the potential risk to the heart in the drugs’ labeling and patient package inserts. FDA continues to receive reports of cardiac valvular disease in persons who have taken these drugs."

                    OK. "fen-phen" had a legitimate medical use. It also ended up causes heart abnormalities. Clearly, the product needed to be taken off the market. It was dangerous to consumers. Y'know what it didn't do? Kill 3 million frickin' people.

                    Again, math. Any other product that was implicated in the deaths of over 3 million people per year would come under much greater scrutiny.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      To continue with guns, a product designed to KILL people, we see that globally gun ownership is high. You know what else we don't see? Over 3 million deaths. Heck, not even a million.

                      http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...orld-list#data

                      Note that this is merely homicides and not deaths in active conflicts. I'm sure if we included suicides this number would grow. It still wouldn't top 1 million. If there was a major war, obviously this number would spike. And there's millions of armed people in the world... so, again, a product DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE, is implicated in fewer deaths than alcohol.

                      And you people are still convinced of its safety? Bitch please.

                      Another link with interesting information on guns.

                      http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

                      "
                      Small arms, commonly known as firearms or guns, are used to kill as many as 1,000 people each day. Millions more are wounded, or their lives upended when access to development aid, markets, health, education and human rights is disrupted by people with guns.

                      There are more than 875 million firearms in the world, 75 per cent of them in the hands of civilians. Guns outnumber passenger vehicles by 253 million, or 29 per cent."

                      So, a maximum of 365,000 small arms deaths a year according to this. That doesn't seem to include deaths in active hotspots. Lots of harm, and not surprising considering that guns are ubiquitous and designed to kill.

                      And alcohol?
                      Last edited by DanInAceh; 20-07-14, 03:49.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by okonumiyaki View Post
                        Alcohol 2.5-3m deaths, tobacco 5m. But both of these are "self harm" deaths.Deaths caused by religion tend to be harm to others.
                        + Guns...
                        10 step to eternity...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by DanInAceh View Post
                          Eh?

                          Put this into perspective, as my posts have hardly been "hysterical" nor "chest beating." If you had any other product or substance that killed that many people, what would become of that substance? Let's say I put a new product on the market, Danohol, that is a runaway success consumed by 2 billion people. Unfortunately, Danohol is also implicated in the deaths of over 3 million of those people. What do you think government bodies like the FDA would do to Danohol? THEY'D BAN IT!

                          The amusing part of all of this, for me, is that most of the same voices involved in this "well, you CAN'T ban alcohol... it's too good to give up!" crap are pretty much the same people who always say "why the fuck are guns legal? that's dumb! they kill people!"

                          Also, I can control my drinking habits. I was never a big drinker. I never saw the allure. I can comprehend the desire to have a drink to "unwind." I can also comprehend the cost of such beverages and math simply isn't on the side of people who want to keep it lawful.

                          Dan we are all gonna die one day just get over it, everyone dies eventually, you only live once so stop being so uptight

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Sorry dan but this is a false comparison. Fen-phen proved dangerous while it was being taken for the specific function it had been created, and under doctors supervision. That is why it was pulled.

                            Let me say this again for the sake of clarity and hopefully finality

                            It is the [SIZE=5]MISUSE[/SIZE] of alcohol which causes problems, which is why we have laws punishing people for their actions while under the influence of excessive amounts of alcohol. Alcohol, unlike for example tobacco, in and of itself is NOT a dangerous product if used correctly, responsibly and safely. Now agan, you can say it is addictive, which through overuse / MISUSE certainly is true. But your liver doesn't explode if you drink a glass of wine with a meal over a period of a year.

                            And I know this to be a fact for the simple reason that I am not dead, I am not an alcoholic and I do not have an alcohol related disease.

                            Here are some figures for you:


                            (Prevalence of Current Alcohol Use in the US, 2010) "Slightly more than half (52.1 percent) of Americans aged 12 or older reported being current drinkers of alcohol

                            The United States will enter 2010 with a population of roughly 308.4 million people (according to the U.S. Census Bureau)
                            51.2 percent of the population = 160.7 million people

                            In 2010, a total of 25,692 persons died of alcohol induced causes in the United States - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Alco....Aq72SN4w.dpuf

                            In 2010, a total of 25,692 persons died of alcohol induced causes in the United States

                            These are the people who died directly from drinking alcohol

                            (25,692/308,400,000 )*100 = [SIZE=5]0.008% [/SIZE]of users died as a direct result of drinking alcohol.

                            From these figures we can see that it is hardly a deadly poison.

                            Now in fairness, these figures do not include deaths attributable to the misuse of alcohol, such as drink driving, violence etc, but the point I am supporting is, once again, that alcohol itself is not a dangerous product, IF USED responsibly.
                            Last edited by Mr Fizzywig; 20-07-14, 13:28.
                            "He who has no manners has no knowledge..."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I hope alcohol is banned.... By tomorrow please ... I am sooooo hung over.......

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                If this had of come up 12 months ago I might have a different answer. These days the thought of alcohol ban doesn't frighten me, after a year of living in rural Sumatra. Its not a drinking culture here thats for sure. I used to identify myself as a drinker/rebel rouser and pride myself on how much I could handle without getting drunk. All that started to change when you don't really have access to it. For me drinking was a purely social thing it turns out. When you don't have a venue to drink with friends...what's the point. I could go and buy beer and get drunk every day on my own at home...its there if you want it. These days I'm just as happy sitting around with the lads after a surf enjoying a kelapa muda (well not during Ramahdan)?? But the thought of someone dictating what I can and can't do, based on their own ignorance, get's me mad.

                                Alcohol is such a minor issue for the vast majority of Indonesian society. Why would there be a need to ban something that would attribute such a minor figures to the annual death toll. Its the scaremongering in kampungs by zealots. The biggest killers in Indonesia, like many other places in the world are Cardiovascular disease-attributed to cholesterol (fried food saturated in palm oil), cigarettes, sedentary lifestyles (using cars instead of walking), coffee, sugar.

                                Quite frankly a ban of alcohol in Bengkulu will not mean much to anyone except the 12 so Tuak drinkers I say hello to every day in the bushes near the beach. A good natured bunch who like a sip and a game of backgammon. There's far greater problems that Indonesian politicians should be worrying about...honestly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X