Miscellaneous desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 22

Help! I have really good wine but no corkscrew

Yes, I know I could grab a screwdriver or thin knife or something and go to town, but I'd ruin the cork and probably break it up and get cork in the wine. I do have a corkscrew and I've spent half an hour looking for it. Anyone have some suggestions?--141.155.148.156 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I answered it myself. http://www.wikihow.com/Open-a-Wine-Bottle-Without-a-Corkscrew --141.155.148.156 (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W.C. Fields could have used that advice when he complained, "Whilst traveling through the Andes Mountains, we lost our corkscrew. Had to live on food and water for several days." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! By the way, it was (is) delicious. Worked like a charm though it took many wacks with my shoe.--141.155.148.156 (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I always keep a supply of stimulant handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy." WCF. Odd that Googling up that saying gets an ad from the Betty Ford Center. PhGustaf (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Apparently the good Ms. Ford was fond of reptiles, yes, indeed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I might use that technique for a really crappy bottle of wine - or for a white/rose wine - but for a good red, you'll mix up the sediment into the wine, which is a gargantuan "no-no"! SteveBaker (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if the Resveratrol perhaps is found in the sediments? Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pounding (on the bottle, on a wall) trick to pushing a cork out of a bottle is right up there with the microwave oven as among the very worst things that can be done to a nice bottle of wine. OK, OK, I’ve had wines that couldn’t be hurt by anything because they were so bad, but frankly if you have a wine worth opening, and you don’t have a corkscrew, get one. Have a beer while you wait. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered sabrage? --Trovatore (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, slightly more conveniently, invest in one of these. CS Miller (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrage only works on sparkling wines where the mushroom-shaped cork sticks up out of the top of the bottle. Getting the cork out of your bottle of 1945 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild with a sabre is NOT recommended. (Although, at $116,000 a bottle, removing the cork by any means whatever is fiscally irresponsible!) SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just pop down to the closest shop and buy a new corkscrew. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeSales-Oblates

There is a page for Oblates of Saint Francis DeSales (OSFS); they are not included on the list of Roman Catholic Religious Orders page, however. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.169.37 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have no page called List of Roman Catholic Religious Orders. If you mean Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies, the OSFS are in a sub-subcategory of that category, Category:Salesian Order. There's no need to list something in a category and all its parent categories as well; the more general categories would become huge and unusable. Marnanel (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buying stuff online

I'm not allowed to buy stuff online, but there are several users on a website I frequent who are four or five years younger than me, and they are allowed to. Why do they have permission? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is not permitting you to buy? How do you know how old the other users are? Are they lying in their account settings? How old are you? What site are you using? Aaronite (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because their parents have a different parenting style? As you go through life you'll see that comparing everything to what others have and can do compared to you is a dead end that only leads to negative things.--141.155.148.156 (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only the underprivileged would just be quiet about it! They'd be so much happier, and wouldn't have negative things, like emancipation. 213.122.34.174 (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many websites will ask you your age and not let you participate if you're under some particular age. Those age checks are mostly on the honor system, so if that's what's stopping you, your friends are probably just lieing about their age. APL (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page I see you are a 17-year old boy. I guess you have parent(s) or guardian who cares for your safety on the Internet. Not all are so lucky as you. Be a little patient with the rules you are given because it won't be long before you become an adult. Then you will have all the responsibilities that implies, such as earning your keep. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that will stop you from buying things online is access to an appropriate form of payment. At 17, you're too young in most countries to have your own credit card (instead of one co-managed by your parents). The younger people who are buying online will likely be using their parents' online-financing, their parents have opened one for them (which may or may not be monitored by the parents) or some form of age deception has taken place. One of the primary solutions available to you is to have your parents assist you buying things online, or make friends with someone who will let you use their details in exchange for immediate payment (I have done this for people before, with their parents' permission). Steewi (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

future of retail industry in india

what is the future of retail industry in India?Pras9874 (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball; we cannot answer those types of questions. Chevy monte carlo 07:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most we can say, to quote Curt Gowdy, is that "their future is ahead of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is hard to predict anything right now, but as far as I know, unlike China, India's organized retail industry is still in a nascent stage. For example, 100% FDI is still not allowed in India. There are so many Wal Mart stores in China, in India it is still unimaginable. And the future is certainly not bright if organizations like this exist. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article may help you. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Traveller, how much extra are you willing to pay to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart? Studies have shown that the typical US family that shops at Wal-Mart (with which I have no affiliation; there isn't even one in my city) saves about $600 a year. So, how much would you be willing to pay? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I call ^{[citation needed]} on DOR's US$600 per year claim. (Compared to shopping where? Nordstrom?) Also, of course, since Wal-Mart pays poverty-level wages[1] to its employees, the family you cite does pay some extra amount of money in taxes for things like Medicaid (2% of Wal-Mart employees are so poor they qualify) and other poverty-targeted local, state, and federal programs. I'm not asserting anything about the relative costs of the latter vs. the alleged savings. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on Global Warming (cont.)

I am continuing from my last question.

I am now not asking about Bjørn Lomborg, Penn Jillette, Teller, or any other particular person on these two particular statements.

What do global warming skeptics think about these two particular statements? How do they react and respond to these two particular statements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.24.186 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for why so many people still resist what the facts clearly show, I think, in part, the reason is that the truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives...The truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives.-Al Gore

Lord Monckton has argued that these changes would make the rich richer, and the poor poorer while doing little to reduce the effects of anthropogenic global warming. He also states that the inconvenience of this change will be be carried by those who can least afford it.Smallman12q (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of tedious to ask variations on the same, really specific question. Plug the sentence in particular into Google Blog search and you get tons of people commenting on that specific phrase, mainly people objecting to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked variations on the same specific question because they said they didn't know the answers to the earlier variations so I asked different variations of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.12.113 (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why "life boy" still hold the market share in India at the semi urban and the rural area? part 1

The life boy one of the oldest FMCG products in India still holds the market share in India specialy in the rural and the sei urbar area. But if the rule of product life cycle does not go with the product.Life boy also not change their product line, then how it's carry the market share. Pras9874 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Lifebuoy (soap) and Fast moving consumer goods? Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

customer acceptance of a product(give necessary correction )

reformatted - Rojomoke (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Dish washer took 21 years for customer acceptance, while Electric bulb take 3 years for the similar acceptance? my answer is as follows...

As the use of electric bulb is more than the dishwasher, and in every where the electric bulb is used ; at the same time dish washer can not used by every family. the dish washer is very much costly than a electric bulb. so dish washer take a long time for customer acceptance than electric bulb.

I try to answer this case, please give me necessary points, and can suggest me any article. Pras9874 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Technology acceptance model and the See alsos in that article. Not very user friendly, but it is what you want, I think. I would add as an aside that a dishwasher is generally a luxury. I don't have or need one, but it would be nice to have one, it isn't as urgent for me to get one. Electric light, on the other hand, is very handy and used all the time. Aaronite (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes a moment for a customer to evaluate the usefulness of a lightbulb. The calculation concerning cost and benefit is simple for the lightbulb. But in the case of the dishwasher the costs and the benefits are less clear or less immediately apparent. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not least because the dishwasher (according to QI) was not invented to wash dishes quickly, nor easily, nor cheaply. So the benefits for most households were merely sideeffects.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many households hand wash their dishes instead of using a dishwasher. There are also different kinds of lightbulbs, as incandescent lightbulbs are being phased out in some areas and replaced with compact fluorescent lightbulbs. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with how long it took for customer acceptance of the electric bulb. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's of note that electric light is only cheap and easy if the infrastructure is in place to use it. Edison is often remarked (by historians like Thomas P. Hughes) as being as important as a system builder as he was an inventor. Additionally when you compare electric lighting to its predecessors (e.g. gas lighting or oil lamps), the advantages of electric are pretty clear, and there are basically no disadvantages (once you have the infrastructure built up). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reading into the OP's question I see an inquiry into how a dishwasher differs from an electric light bulb when first introduced to customers. (I can't suggest an article as requested.) But I think the most significant difference would have to be the obviousness of the usefulness of the light bulb — it turns night into day. Perhaps the OP can provide some feedback as to how well the question is being responded to so far. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of appliances are slow to catch on, especially as the initial unit cost tends to be fairly high. I can recall when DVD players were like a thousand dollars. I got my first one when they had come down to about 250. By now you can get a decent player for well under 100. Never mind the dishwasher, what about the automobile? It didn't catch on right away either, but as the prices came down and the convenience of driving went up, sales skyrocketed. Back to dishwashers, I can recall when they made "portable" dishwashers that were on wheels and could have their hoses attached to the tap. When not in use, you could roll it back into its corner and use it for an end-table. The big selling point on dishwashers would have to be not just convenience, but also sanitation. It can get the water much hotter than you can tolerate when washing dishes the manual way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can marble interact unfavorably with brick?

I live in souuthwest Va and have a unique situation. My home has a brick chimney that has been sealed with marble plates on top. I also have an area on ground level that is topped with marble and brick lain beneath. The chimney is deteriorating mainly on the east side. It appears that rainwater running down from the marble slabs could be causing it. The weather comed mainly from the western direction and therefore the western side of the chimney is the least affected, maybe from the constant rinsing. The area on grund level is showing a white substance on the face of the brick.. The brick on both areas are peelig (flaking) off in approximately 1/100 of an inch and can be as large as the whole brick face. There are other homes in the area but none show this condition, none are topped by marble slabs either.

C Corvin 8/22/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.129 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, totally non-expert response here, but if it was my chimney I would agree with you, and be suspicious of the marble. A Google search confirms that marble is particularly susceptible to weathering by rain - for example, see Acid_rain#Other adverse effects. The calcite in the marble will dissolve in the rain, damaging and weathering the marble itself. The dissolved calcite will raise the pH of the the rainwater trickling down onto the bricks. The white substance on the ground level bricks may well be deposits of calcite leached out of the marble chimney top and redeposited where the water pools at ground level. I have no idea what effect (if any) the resulting water will have on the bricks themselves; I suppose it will depend on the pH of the water. Googling suggests there are various grades of brick, and chimneys should be constructed from the most weathering-resistant. But in the absence of any other factor, and the lack of damage to the chimneys of neighbours without marble-topped chimneys, I would be inclined to look closely at the marble topping to my chimney stack. If it looks at all weathered or eaten away, I would be suspicious. Ka renjc 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is efflorescence. It is more likely that the damage is being caused by the mortar itself - it can contain salts and calcium substances that can expand in the brick and cause the brick to fail as you describe. The marble might not be helping, but I would expect that it would contribute only surface schmutz unless it itself is cracked. The way to defend against efflorescence and water-related damage is to ensure that the cap is properly sealed, and that the marble cap is secure, uncracked and is not admitting water in to the chimney. Water is the enemy - if the masonry is dry, the efflorescence can't be activated, and freeze-thaw cycles (which can be vicious in a chimney) don't have so much opportunity to break up the masonry. Acroterion _(talk) 03:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to brush the efflorescence away with a stiff brush. 92.28.246.109 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1973—2010 NYS license plates

can 1973 nys licence plates be reused on a motor vehicle today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.5.103 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have to pay a fee and get a current license. Some states allow "antique" vehicles, not driven in common use, but driven in 4th of July parades and such, to carry vintage or antique plates, but 1973 does not seem old enough. (Not legal advice, just common sense.)Edison (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The limit for 'antique' vehicles is 25 years...so '73 is OK. My '63 Mini has original British license plates that are legal for driving to and from club meetings, car shows, etc. I have clip-on modern plates for other uses. SteveBaker (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, a plate that isn't currently registered will have to be replaced with a new one that is. A more interesting question is could someone have renewed the same plate since 1973? I doubt it. I can't find a source that says so for sure, but thisdocument suggests that the oldest plates you're allowed to keep using are the blue and white plates issued in 2001. APL (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legalization of Marijuana and the effects on the drug war

I was pondering what the legalization of marijuana would do to this country and I just read an article about four men who were hung dead by their feet in the middle of a Mexican city. Obviously there is a big market for drugs in the U.S., if there wasn't the drug cartel would not be so violent and destructive. My question is what do you think the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would do to the United States/Mexican drug war. Would it calm the war down, or enrage it? Out of all the drugs smuggled across the borders, is marijuana one of the biggest profits for the drug cartel?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.5.27 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at our article on Prohibition - that show's exactly what can happen when you outlaw an intoxicant and the results of repealing that law. Exxolon (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were legalized in the US, it's not necessarily true that the importation of the stuff would become legal. SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if it was manufacturable in the US, it would drop the price (at least for production, not necessarily for consumers) and thus the benefit of an illegal import business. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly where it's been quasi-legalized in California, there is heavy regulation of growers and sellers alike - that would likely be the model adopted throughout the country if there was legalization - precisely because there would be no desire to further increase the profits of cartels in Mexico. SteveBaker (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of discussion on this in many mainstream periodicals. Here, for example, is a recent Newsweek article on just this question. The general consensus seems to be that it would probably have some impact on the cartels. The cartels, of course, do not do all of their business in marijuana, and are powerful and diversified enough to probably continue on with some force afterwards. (Similarly, ending prohibition in the US in the 1930s did not destroy the mafia.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "dirty little secret" about Prohibition is that it was significantly successful in its aim, as most people were inclined to obey the law. A major reason for the amendment was to curb spousal abuse by drunken husbands, which was practically an epidemic by the start of the 20th century. The ones not willing to obey the law obviously helped fuel the growth of organized crime, although as 98 notes, organized crime continued to flourish after Prohibition's repeal, and in fact it existed before Prohibition. Prohibition simply created a new market for the underworld to expand into. The other side of the Prohibition lesson is that legalizing currently-illegal drugs would theoretically lower their cost, which would theoretically have at least two effects: (1) a reduction in drug-related violent crimes; and (2) an increase in drug usage. This is not exactly a new debate. It came up in an Econ 101 class I was in a generation or two ago. Another question to ponder is this: Is America in better shape now, in regard to alcoholism and substance abuse in general, than it was in 1930? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that none of these responses have actually addressed the question. My impression is that cocaine is the big profitmaker and marijuana is relatively minor (as far as cross-Mexican-border smuggling is concerned), but I don't actually know any stats. Looie496 (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol is more harmful than marijuana. Thus according the same status to marijuana as to alcohol would have the effect of alleviating hypocrisy. <-- personal opinion Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana is like soda pop compared with coke and heroin and such. Plus there's probably so much of it around that the cost is driven down. As far as harmfulness, I'm not so sure we even know all the long-range effects of marijuana. Those of alcohol are certainly well-documented, and most of them are not good. The dilemma with this entire substance abuse problem is that banning something doesn't directly address the real problem - namely, that many people are vulnerable to addiction of one kind or another. It's like a hard-wired human trait, with no clear explanation of where it would come from, evolutionarily speaking. I'm not convinced there's any net social benefit to legalizing this stuff, yet the libertarian in me keeps going back to what Drew Carey once said: "I don't think the government has the right to limit the ways I can hurt myself." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that its often not only yourself that is being hurt (c.f. drunk driving accidents). There are also societal harms (overall loss of productivity, health effects we all pay for via insurance premiums, psychosocial effects on one's family and friends, etc. etc.) I am inclined to agree wholeheartedly with arguements towards legalization, but the "its only me I am hurting" is a bad one. One can be both anti-drug and pro-legalization; there is also the (rather stronger, IMHO) arguement that criminalization actually worsens the drug problem because it prevents proper treatment af drug-related issues. --Jayron32 05:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the fallacy in the "victimless crime" argument. No one is an island. What we do affects others, and while we might think we have the right to do whatever we want, they also have the right not to be impacted by what we do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument from self-ownership is the best one, and actually the sufficient one by itself. None of the "societal harms" follow necessarily from the use of the substance, and some of them (like the one about productivity) are about things that society is not entitled to demand of the individual anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment opens a real can of worms. The bottom line on it is, is someone going to be productive, or are they going to be a sponge? "Society" is us, and society does, in fact, have the right to expect individuals to contribute and not to just be schnorrers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anyone has to provide for you in any way if you make that choice. I'm saying that they don't have the right to expect you to be productive. That might mean you starve, but it shouldn't mean the law has any claim against you. --Trovatore (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interesting NYT article[2] recently about legal pot in Holland attracting criminal activity around "drug tourism". Result is Dutch towns near Holland's borders with other countries want to limit pot sales to Dutch citizens, but EU free-trade laws prohibit such discrimination. I've also heard claims that pot is a high-dollar export crop for California, so legalizing it (which will drive prices lower) may adversely impact the California economy. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An economist would have to run the numbers, BUT a few possible considerations: 1. whether the economic growth supported by a black market product is economically for the best (Cocaine Cowboys, an interesting if at times annoying documentary about the Miami coke boom in the 70s-80s, is an interesting point of comparison here — Miami did very well in the 1970s in part because of the hugh profits in cocaine, but the overall cost was quite high); 2. whether the losses would be made up by taxation; 3. whether the losses would be made up through savings in law enforcement (consider the costs to the state and economy of detecting, prosecuting, and imprisoning violators). The Holland situation is an interesting but special case, one about an arbitrage situation, basically, and one probably peculiar to Europe as well (where having one country with vastly different laws just a car or train or short shuttle plane away from other countries does encourage jurisdictional shopping — the US probably would have less of that, given that getting to it from any country other than Canada is still fairly non-trivial). In any case, I think the overall point — that there are costs and benefits to any policy decision — is worth taking seriously, and one should not believe the "for" hype or the "against" hype completely. It seems that on the balance, though, legalization would solve a number of social problems rather immediately which seem to be artifacts of the enforcement rather than the use. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need more intoxication in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly exchange higher rates of intoxication for lower rates of incarceration. The social and economic effects of the latter concern me far greater than the former. It is further debatable whether or not legalization would actually increase the rate of intoxication appreciably (it would probably change the method for many, but I doubt the rate). It would also gladly exchange the particular type of intoxication one gets with alcohol for the kind that one gets with marijuana, as a social issue. Though I don't (through personal experience) buy the "stoners are all peaceful" argument, I have found that the drunks I have met were far more unpredictable and often socially unpleasant than the stoned people I have met. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying alcohol consumption did not increase when Prohibition ended? I seriously doubt it. Surprisingly, a lot of people are law-abiding citizens, and once something previously forbidden is made available, more folks are going to try it - and like it. I could go off on a John Birch-style rant here, but I'll leave it be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between arguing about alcohol use after Prohibition and all intoxicant use after legalization is that you already have people getting intoxicated legally at the moment. Going from "nothing is legal" to "alcohol is legal" is a different shift than going from "alcohol is legal, pot is illegal" to "both alcohol and pot are legal." Presumably the sorts of people who are prone to getting intoxicated are already doing it with alcohol. What I'm arguing is that the total number of people getting intoxicated probably would not change by legalizing pot, but that the means by which they get intoxicated probably would (you'd see a greater share of pot smokers rather than boozers). I think the sorts of people who never get intoxicated are not going to start with marijuana. That's just a presumption on my part, though. I know plenty of people who have never gotten stoned, but almost all drink wine or beer or harder on a pretty regular basis. I don't know anyone who has only smoked pot and never drank. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally here, while I have drunk before, I don't drink. I don't have anything particular against drinking except that I don't find I enjoy the taste of alcohol so I see little point spending a lot of money on something I don't enjoy. Sometimes, particularly when it's free, I may do it for fun, and once I did semi try to get drunk on RTDs but I don't know if I've ever really been drunk (I've never noticed anything). I've never smoken marijuana but if it were legal and easily available, I probably would have. If I found the experience enjoyable it may very well be something I did more regularly then drinking. While I'm probably not the common in NZ, I doubt I'm the only one. Also I suspect there are a fair few Rastafarians who use marijuana but limit their consumption of alcohol, given that one is generally semi-encouraged and the other one is semi-discouraged. Of course most of these are probably already consuming marijuana so their numbers may not change much. I can't help wondering whether there may be some others, e.g. Muslims or Jewish people who have religious reasons for refraining from alcohol but may decide marijuana is okay (at least a lesser sin enough). Notably tobacco often seems more accepted although there are perhaps increasing efforts to discourage it too. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism per se has nothing against alcohol (again per se). "A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry" (Ecclesiastes 10:19). There are strict laws about how wine must be prepared to make it kosher, which you would hardly expect if it were considered sinful in itself. --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]