Is drunkenness intrinsically wrong?

[LilyM]

HomeschoolDad:

Freddy:

This is a matter of degree only. A single small glass of wine will have an affect on anyone. It may not be noticeable, but it is definitely there. Drink the whole bottle and the effects are very noticeable.

Where each of us determines the cut off point and under what circumstances it applies is an individual matter.

If I’m driving I’ll be well under the legal limit. If I’m at home watching the football I might well be well over. If I’m at home looking after the grandkids then I’ll be stone cold sober.

I get no effect whatsoever from a single 12 ounce beer or a small glass of wine, if taken with a meal as I normally do when I have a drink.

Most of us won’t feel it. But it doeshave an effect. It’s a drug. As soon as any of it gets to your brain it increases the production of dopamine. You may not be aware of it but it’s there.

And I’m not suggesting that drinking is inherently wrong. The amount I drink is probably on the wrong side of what might be described as ‘moderate’. Correction: definitely on the wrong side…

Yeah but exercise also increases the production of dopamine, hence the “runners high”. Not everything that increases your dopamine is a drug.

However, alcohol IS a drug, being a depressant. Then again, caffeine is also a drug, a stimulant.

Doctors dont condemn or criticise moderate consumption, only overuse.

In moderation both caffeine and alcohol have health benefits which counteract any negatives.

 

[Freddy]

Traditionally, the Church defines drunkenness as drinking to the point that you can no longer discern right from wrong. That line will vary.

I know a lot of people who couldn’t do that stone cold sober.

 

[Freddy]

Not drunk is he who from the floor
Can get back up and drink some more
But drink is he who prostrate lies
Without the power to drink or rise

(Not really, I just like this poem)

I always liked Churchills line when a woman haughtily complained that he was drunk: ‘And you madam are ugly. But at least I shall be sober in the morning’.

And one more from the great man:

Lady Soames: ‘Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea!’
Churchill: ‘Madam, if I were your husband, I would drink it…’

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I always liked Churchills line when a woman haughtily complained that he was drunk: ‘And you madam are ugly. But at least I shall be sober in the morning’.

And one more from the great man:

Lady Soames: ‘Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea!’
Churchill: ‘Madam, if I were your husband, I would drink it…’

And let’s not forget Eleanor Roosevelt. A man in his cups told her she was the ugliest woman he had ever seen. She then told him that he was the drunkest man she had ever seen.

Incidentally, she was not a bad-looking woman in her youth, not in the least.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LilyM]

0Scarlett_nidiyilii:

Not drunk is he who from the floor
Can get back up and drink some more
But drink is he who prostrate lies
Without the power to drink or rise

(Not really, I just like this poem)

I always liked Churchills line when a woman haughtily complained that he was drunk: ‘And you madam are ugly. But at least I shall be sober in the morning’.

And one more from the great man:

Lady Soames: ‘Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea!’
Churchill: ‘Madam, if I were your husband, I would drink it…’

Aah, Churchhill had some fantastic zingers, usually with good friends and in jest.

One, the playwright Shaw, once sent him two tickets for the opening night of a play of his. The note said 'Bring a friend - if you have one".

Churchhill sent back a reply “Sorry I cannot make the opening night, but I would like two tickets for the second night - if there is one.”

 

[jack63]

I’ve always liked the scripture below from Matthew 11:19

the Son of Man came eating and drinking , and they say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds

Perhaps we are to be careful about throwing the term “drunk” around. ”Drunkard“ was an attack thrown at Jesus. If your alcohol use is hurting yourself or (potentially) others, that’s bad. It’s a sin. Otherwise, perhaps we don’t get too uptight about it.

I often think that there are alcoholics that in a different environment where people are taught to drink responsibly would not be alcoholics. Like many thinks, a good glass or wine/bourbon/cider is a gift from God. The wedding at Cana was Jesus’ first miracle after all.

 

[PeterT]

As an Irish American, I guarantee you my idea of what constitutes “drunkenness” is probably radically different from some of the other folks on this forum.

Drinking alcohol is certainly not an intrinsic evil. If it were, then Catholic priests wouldn’t drink and monks wouldn’t brew beer.

Nor would our Lord have turned water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana (at a point of the feast where the wedding guests had already consumed a good quantity of wine).

 

[kapp19]

It is wrong when it is immoderate - normally consisting in the suspension of reason in proportion with one’s ability to moderate other behavior with the will in a timely manner appropriate to one’s situation. With the reason, we love God and avoid sin.

However, sometimes it is legitimate to suspend one’s reason, and it can even be obligatory, like sleeping, or anesthesia for surgery. It is also possible to use alcohol for anesthesia - though of course this is thankfully atypical in the developed world. So no, in this sense it is legitimate.