The Morality of Alcohol

[Jim Austin]

You do know that Ayn Rand smoked, right? Nicotine is a FAR more powerful poison than alcohol, which is why you take it in such ridiculously small doses. Caffiene in pure form is similarly strong; a fiction author I know of used it as a poison applied to daggers because one scratch will cause seizures and heart failure.

Alcohol, caffeine and nicotine are quite different. For instance, I don't know of anyone who has been arrested for driving under the influence of Marlboros. And I've never heard of a date rape occurring after a girl had one too many Starbucks. Unlike booze, which is an escape from reality, cigarettes help one focus and are a symbol of man's achievement. From Atlas Shrugged: "When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression." As for poisoned daggers, I think that retaliation is a matter best left to the police.

[Dismuke]

Unlike booze, which is an escape from reality, cigarettes help one focus and are a symbol of man's achievement. From Atlas Shrugged: "When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression. As for poisoned daggers, I think that retaliation is a matter best left to the police."

Jim - please tell me that the above is a tongue-in-cheek parody of an Ayn Rand fan suffering from an extreme case of rationalism. You see, that is exactly the sort of thing I would say if I were writing a parody - though I would run the risk of perhaps being accused of going a bit overboard. If so, then you do need to make the fact that it is intended as humor explicit and make sure that you identify the point you are trying to make in such a way as to make it clear that your intention is not to be offensive.

If you are genuinely sincere in what you write - well, I apologize for the above paragraph in the sense that it is not my intention to poke fun at you. However, before you engage in any discussions of Objectivism with people unfamiliar with the philosophy and before you attempt to further apply the philosophy to your own life, I urge you to please buy, beg or borrow a copy of the taped lecture course Dr. Peikoff did some years back called Understanding Objectivism in which he very explictly deals with the sort of rationalism that students of Objectivism sometimes fall prey to in their enthusiasm for the philosophy. You might also benefit from reading or rereading what Dr. Peikoff has to say about rationalism and intrincisism in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

As for the specific content of your remarks above - all I will say is that Ayn Rand never intended for her writings to be interpreted as though they were some sort of sacred text or dogma. The applicability of her principles and philosophic wisdom to any specific context is something which must be validated and applied accordingly. If Ayn Rand - who, by the way, lost part of one of her lungs to cancer and quit smoking - were alive today, I seriously doubt that she would urge her readers to take up the habit of smoking on grounds that it is appropriate to "have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression." There are a great many factors - including some which are highly personal and individual - that a person must take into consideration before making any such decision.

As for poisoned daggers, I think that retaliation is a matter best left to the police.

Context, Jim. The poisoned daggers were clearly identified as being used in a work of fiction. "Thou shalt delegate retaliation to the police" does not apply to the creation of fictional stories (or anything else for that matter).

Edited February 15, 2006 by Dismuke

[Capitalism Forever]

I have no personal knowledge of the referent of this definition: it occurs to me that some people (like myself) may be physically incapable of getting drunk, in your sense.

There is a dose of alcohol that will cause you to lose your consciousness, and there is a dose that will cause you to die. I believe these two thresholds depend entirely on your physique and cannot be influenced volitionally in the short term. Now, if you are able to hold on to your volition until you get as far as the first threshold, you'll transition from tipsiness to lost consciousness without an intervening phase of drunkenness (though if I saw you lying in the gutter, I would still call you a drunkard).

But beyond a certain point, holding on to your volition is itself a matter of choice. The people who get drunk on purpose don't want to make choices; they would let go of their volition even while sober if they could. But that isn't possible, as volition is a part of man's normal nature; they need to violate it using alcohol in order to get rid of the responsibility of having to choose. They will get drunk as soon as their awareness is blunted enough to be able to blank out the fact that they are in control of their actions.

A person who does not want to lose his volition, on the other hand, will not be trying to evade his responsibility of choice, and thus he will maintain his will much longer than his less virtuous fellow drinkers.

[Dismuke]

A person who does not want to lose his volition, on the other hand, will not be trying to evade his responsibility of choice, and thus he will maintain his will much longer than his less virtuous fellow drinkers.

And, if what you say is correct, this will also in and of itself put a limit on how much a responsible person will drink because, beyond a certain point, his ability to to maintain control will increasingly become a struggle and he will regard the effects of the alcohol as being a disvalue. It is possible for a drink to be stronger than a person anticipated or for one's body chemistry to be a bit "off" on a given evening and a person might suddenly discover that he is a bit more tipsy than he had intended on getting. When that happens, a virtuous person recognizes that he has crossed a certain line and makes the choice to call it quits for the evening. Those who continue on I would say (with the exception of some pretty rare and extenuating circumstances - for example, I can understand why someone who witnessed first hand the horrors of the World Trade Center attack might want to curl up in a place where he cannot harm himself or others and obliterate all awarness of what he saw in order to get through that first night afterwards) are evading in a pretty big way.

One of the big problems with drunks, however, is the fact that many utterly fail to recognize that they are in such a condition. Often, in fact, they claim that alcohol makes them more aware, alert and in control - something which is never the case in very pathetic ways. In that sense, some drunks are similar those who abuse other forms of drugs and claim that doing so "enhances" their perception of reality.

[DavidOdden]

There is a dose of alcohol that will cause you to lose your consciousness, and there is a dose that will cause you to die. I believe these two thresholds depend entirely on your physique and cannot be influenced volitionally in the short term. Now, if you are able to hold on to your volition until you get as far as the first threshold, you'll transition from tipsiness to lost consciousness without an intervening phase of drunkenness (though if I saw you lying in the gutter, I would still call you a drunkard).

Okay, this may be. I've only observed anything like this once, when a friend's fundamental ideals had been betrayed by a person he trusted, and he had to obliterate his mind for the evening. To Dismuke's point about delayed effects, this was his first experience with drink, and he went for the hard stuff: and I estimate that he downed nearly a liter in less than an hour, so the consequences were at that point beyond his control. I have never witnessed or seen evidence of a man lacking volition, before that first stage of losing consciousness, but I don't hang out with the hard-drinking college crowd, so I admit to limited experience in that matter. I would be curious to hear from others who had experience with a man who is conscious but had no volition -- I'm just having a hard time imagining how that is possible. I suppose a large part of my problem is that I understand man to have a consciousness that is volitional by nature, so to say that consciousness and volition are separable in man is hard for me to accept.

But beyond a certain point, holding on to your volition is itself a matter of choice. The people who get drunk on purpose don't want to make choices; they would let go of their volition even while sober if they could.

Yes and no: the change I would make to your statement is that these people seek a pretext for claiming lack of volition. For them, the goal is to remain conscious, but to avoid responsibility for their actions, by claiming non-volitionality. This form of degradation is volitional, and is even learned cultural behavior. I'm referring especially to the traditional behavior of Japanese men when they go to drinking events. It is very clear that there is a cultural pattern of pretending to have no choice, which allows bad behavior for which you won't be blamed the next day. There is no question that ethanol does weaken your focus and harms your ability to think in terms of the long run, which may make it seem like you have no choice. I simply dispute whether ethanol actually takes away your free will -- the purport that you are acting with no volition, because you were drunk, is just an excuse for avoiding responsibility. Unfortunately, many people accept that excuse.

[Jim Austin]

As for the specific content of your remarks above - all I will say is that Ayn Rand never intended for her writings to be interpreted as though they were some sort of sacred text or dogma. The applicability of her principles and philosophic wisdom to any specific context is something which must be validated and applied accordingly. If Ayn Rand - who, by the way, lost part of one of her lungs to cancer and quit smoking - were alive today, I seriously doubt that she would urge her readers to take up the habit of smoking on grounds that it is appropriate to "have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression." There are a great many factors - including some which are highly personal and individual - that a person must take into consideration before making any such decision.

Context, Jim. The poisoned daggers were clearly identified as being used in a work of fiction. "Thou shalt delegate retaliation to the police" does not apply to the creation of fictional stories (or anything else for that matter).

Sure, if Ayn Rand were alive today, she might want to take back some of the things she said and wrote. But she's not. And so we will just have to rely on what she left behind. Now I know there are those who call themselves Objectivists and then proceed to pick and choose which parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy they wish to take to heart. (I've even encountered "anarcho-Objectivists" -- if you can imagine such a monstrosity.) However, I don't see how these second-handers can be comfortable with themselves. Objectivism is the Philosophy of Ayn Rand -- not Joe Six Pack. Or, as the Objectivism Wiki puts it, "Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter)." http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.ph..._is_Objectivism So when Ayn Rand condemns "the willful suspension of one's consciousness," she isn't just horsing around. As she says in the "About the Author" section of Atlas Shrugged, "And I mean it." If some clown thinks he can get stinking drunk and still be an Objectivist -- he's entitled to his self-delusion. That's doesn't mean that I have to be tolerant of his irrational behavior or contradictions.

As for those daggers, if they were fictional, then it wouldn't matter what was rubbed on them to make them "poisonous." Heck, it could be fairy dust.

[Dismuke]

So when Ayn Rand condemns "the willful suspension of one's consciousness," she isn't just horsing around. As she says in the "About the Author" section of Atlas Shrugged, "And I mean it."

But the fact that Ayn Rand meant what she said does not negate the fact that everything she said was contextual and must be regarded as such. There is a huge difference between taking something seriously and regarding it as dogma.

If some clown thinks he can get stinking drunk and still be an Objectivist

Sure he can. I already gave an example of an extreme and extenuating circumstance where I don't think it would be reasonable to consider it immoral for a person to get stinking drunk.

I would, as a general rule, agree that getting drunk is not moral behavior and, in most contexts, is immoral. But the key word is context.

Furthermore, there is a huge difference between having a drink or two and getting "stinking drunk" - a difference you have not taken at all into consideration in this thread. For example, you wrote:

Alcohol, like all other substances that impair our ability to grasp reality, is immoral.

A statement such as that can only be described as dogmatism, pure and simple. So, as long as we are on the subject of precise conformity to Objectivism, my own personal guess is that Ayn Rand would regard such a dogmatic approach towards her philosophy to be a far more serious issue in terms of long term harmful consequences than she would some college kid who happens to get carried away a bit too much when he is out with his friends one evening and has a few too many to drink.

That's doesn't mean that I have to be tolerant of his irrational behavior or contradictions.

What you choose to tolerate and not tolerate is entirely your choice and your business. Personally, if someone I know gets drunk, I am going to look at it from the perspective of a much wider context before I pass any sort of judgement on the person. In other words, I look at the facts first and only then ask myself what principles might be applicable. And, above all, a "thou shalt not drink" or a "thou shalt not get drunk" attitude is a religious approach towards morality and has nothing at all in common with Objectivism. As I previously suggested, I highly recommend Dr. Peikoff's lectures on Understanding Objectivism.

As for those daggers, if they were fictional, then it wouldn't matter what was rubbed on them to make them "poisonous." Heck, it could be fairy dust.

Well, then, it wouldn't make for a very convincing work of fiction for an adult audience, would it? Atlas Shrugged, by the way, is a work of fiction - a story which is completely made up. Don't you think that Atlas Shrugged might somehow be less of a novel had Galt's motor been fueled by fairy dust?

- - - - made slight edit changing "So, as long as we are on the subject of faithful conformity to Objectivism" to "So, as long as we are on the subject of precisel conformity to Objectivism" due to the real potential for the word "faithful" to be taken in a sense different than what was intended.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Dismuke

[Capitalism Forever]

I suppose a large part of my problem is that I understand man to have a consciousness that is volitional by nature, so to say that consciousness and volition are separable in man is hard for me to accept.

Under normal circumstances, they are inseparable. But volition takes more mental "resources" to function than mere consciousness does; for example, a baby can see and hear things relatively soon after its birth, but it will only be able to conceptualize after a longer period of gathering experience of the world through perception. Your reasoning faculty--which is necessarily inseparable from volition--can only work if you have at least an implicit grasp of the law of identity (as you have to rely on the law of identity even while you deny it volitionally). A grown-up man has learned and automatized the application of the law of identity to an extent that he cannot make himself forget it while he is sober--but, I suppose, the mental slowdown caused by alcohol relieves him of this "burden" much sooner than it turns off his mind completely.

Yes and no: the change I would make to your statement is that these people seek a pretext for claiming lack of volition.

You may well be right. The only way to find out whether you actually lose your volition or whether drunks just claim a lack of it would be to gain introspective experience, which I don't intend to do. Either way, we can definitely say that the people who value drunkenness because it "frees" them of responsibility are evaders and that drinking alcohol for that purpose is immoral.

[BlackSabbath]

By that statement you have boldly declared yourself to be an adversary of Ayn Rand's stance against mind-altering substances. I shall report you to the moderators and have you removed from future posting.

Actually, I'm well known here and as an Objectivist, not a troll.

The fact is that I enjoy a drink. My Grandfather also enjoys his whisky. My father, an alcoholic, does not enjoy his drink and drinks to escape, al a 'the pleasure-seeking personality' described in 'The Virtue of Selfishness'. BTW, I have no idea how it feels to be drunk as I've never been any where near drunk.

The fact remains that if you don't drink whisky, that leaves all the more for me. (I love that emoticon)

[Jim Austin]

But the fact that Ayn Rand meant what she said does not negate the fact that everything she said was contextual and must be regarded as such. There is a huge difference between taking something seriously and regarding it as dogma.

Agreeing with Ayn Rand about smoking is no more dogmatic than sharing her opinion about modern architecture, Victor Hugo -- or tiddlywink music.

Sure he can. I already gave an example of an extreme and extenuating circumstance where I don't think it would be reasonable to consider it immoral for a person to get stinking drunk.

Fine. The next time you get snake bit, you have my permission take a swig of Jim Beam.

So, as long as we are on the subject of faithful conformity to Objectivism, my own personal guess is that Ayn Rand would regard such a dogmatic approach towards her philosophy to be a far more serious issue in terms of long term harmful consequences than she would some college kid who happens to get carried away a bit too much when he is out with his friends one evening and has a few too many to drink.

Let me know when you come across a work of Ayn Rand's that says it's okay to get carried away every now and then and have a few too many. Or when you find a passage in her writing that tolerates "the willful suspension of one's consciousness" on occasion.

Well, then, it wouldn't make for a very convincing work of fiction for an adult audience, would it?

If I were trying to prove something about British intelligence, I wouldn't cite The Spy Who Loved Me as a source.

[Inspector]

Let me know when you come across a work of Ayn Rand's that says it's okay to get carried away every now and then and have a few too many. Or when you find a passage in her writing that tolerates "the willful suspension of one's consciousness" on occasion.

You are simultaneously misrepresenting both his argument and your own.

Your argument has so far been that even a drop of alcohol is immoral. If you’re changing your argument, then you need to say so explicitly.

His argument has been that alcohol is fine as long as one is not drinking it in order to get drunk, and even that may be okay if you’re dealing with some kind of trauma. (sorry if I don’t have this 100% right) He is not advocating “getting carried away every now and then and having a few too many,” so you are attacking a straw man.

[Jim Austin]

You are simultaneously misrepresenting both his argument and your own.

Your argument has so far been that even a drop of alcohol is immoral. If you’re changing your argument, then you need to say so explicitly.

My argument is that the willful suspension of consciousness is immoral. I personally choose not to drink because even a small quantity affects my perception and judgment. Others, of course, have higher thresholds and perhaps there is a human who can imbibe the strong stuff with his faculties completely unimpaired. However, I'd like to see a clinical trial before conceding his claim.

His argument has been that alcohol is fine as long as one is not drinking it in order to get drunk, and even that may be okay if you’re dealing with some kind of trauma. (sorry if I don’t have this 100% right) He is not advocating “getting carried away every now and then and having a few too many,” so you are attacking a straw man.

He claimed that because I took Ayn Rand at her word regaring the immorality of suspending consciousness, my apporach was dogmatic. My response simply challenged him to show proof that Rand was not rigorously consistent on this point. If he can, then I would have to acknowledge that Rand was tolerant of those who willfully suspend their consciousness.

[Adrian Hester]

The fact is that I enjoy a drink. My Grandfather also enjoys his whisky.

(I posted something like this earlier, but it hasn't shown up, so it might have gotten lost.) This isn't germane to the question of whether or not it's moral to partake moderately of alcohol, but you and JMeganSnow both brought up an interesting side issue: Many people drink alcoholic drinks because they taste good. (For instance, I'm a whiskey and scotch man like you are, and also like good beers and wines. Other liquors, especially clear ones like rum, tequila, gin, and vodka, I simply don't like very much, though I do enjoy a martini or a gin and tonic once in a blue moon.) Their taste is pleasurable and they enhance a good meal. This is a different motivation than the desire to reach oblivion fast, which for me is symbolized by a barbaric custom I've seen advertised for several bars at one time or another called "Bladder Bust." The bar will serve 50-cent cups of beer, all you can drink, until someone goes to the bathroom. Apparently seniors at local frats will take up position in front of the bathrooms and physically prevent people from going inside--they have to go round the back of the building or to other places with public restrooms. Now that's drinking to get drunk; the whole point is a fast cheap drunk. And I shudder to think of the quality of beer you'd get for four bits a cup, but then I drink it for the taste.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Adrian Hester

[Thoyd Loki]

Fine. The next time you get snake bit, you have my permission take a swig of Jim Beam.

You have yet to acknowledge that there is a difference between a few drinks and getting drunk. Your response here seems to indicate that you might not even be aware of the difference. You also completely ignored several posts that pointed out JOHN GALT CONSUMING ALCOHOL. YOU HEAR ME? JOHN GALT CONSUMED ALCOHOL! The man you have been quoting, according to everything you have said so far, engaged in the "willful suspension of his consciousness".

Let me know when you come across a work of Ayn Rand's that says it's okay to get carried away every now and then and have a few too many. Or when you find a passage in her writing that tolerates "the willful suspension of one's consciousness" on occasion.

Hold on there cowboy! Again throwing away reality and going straight to scripture. Context and facts be damned! We'll just look up what Ayn Rand said.

You didn't seek any more facts to fill out the example Dismuke offered. Bam! Willful suspension of consciousness, this kid is evil.

Here are a few questions. Has the kid ever even drank before? Was this an instance of someone being way out of their context? Maybe it was his 21st birthday, and he finally tried this yummy thing called a Long Island Iced Tea. Was he busy with finals all day and realized that he had forgot to eat all day? Does he do it again the next night? Ever? What if he marked his mistake (yes! a mistake!), and never did that again in his life? (Too bad, context is for kids, Evil!)

Frankly, for myself, I like the taste and challenge of alcohol on occasion. I like to feel the relaxation and diminished inhibition while keeping my mind sharp. For my body weight, six beers is the limit. I guess that makes me Joe Six Pack, doesn't it?

Now I want to have a giant cup of coffee. I like to drink so much coffee that things on the periphery of my vision shimmer. I call it the Jazz.

[Adrian Hester]

My argument is that the willful suspension of consciousness is immoral. I personally choose not to drink because even a small quantity affects my perception and judgment. Others, of course, have higher thresholds and perhaps there is a human who can imbibe the strong stuff with his faculties completely unimpaired. (Emphasis mine.)

You're equating "willful suspension of consciousness" with even a slight impairment of one's faculties. I don't think that was Ayn Rand's view, and I don't think it's the view of others in this thread.

[Thoyd Loki]

He claimed that because I took Ayn Rand at her word regaring the immorality of suspending consciousness, my apporach was dogmatic. My response simply challenged him to show proof that Rand was not rigorously consistent on this point. If he can, then I would have to acknowledge that Rand was tolerant of those who willfully suspend their consciousness.

And I have proved to you in my post above (that you will ignore) that you do not look at context. I.e. you do not look at facts. Dismuke's point was to point to a context. You threw out any and all questions. "Damn that kid to Objectivist hell. He purposely and knowingly suspended his consciousness!" Did he? How would you possibly know?

Your judgement is a two word proclamation: Drunk, therefore evil. Based on a quote that you will not apply to facts, but use it to obliterate facts.

Your approach is dogmatic, intrinsic, rationalistic, not because you want to consistently apply Objectivist principles (apparently only certain ones because you sure as hell have missed the whole of the epistemology) but because you want to apply them Platonically, irrespective of the facts of a particular case.

[RationalBiker]

He claimed that because I took Ayn Rand at her word regaring the immorality of suspending consciousness, my apporach was dogmatic.

Yes, that is dogmatic. Ayn Rand also said numerous times that you should judge for yourself. Ayn Rand also talks quiet a bit about the importance of context in morality.

My response simply challenged him to show proof that Rand was not rigorously consistent on this point.

You made the positive assertion therefore it is yours to prove, not his to disprove. Offering a statement, without offering an argument, is insufficient for supporting your position. None the less, if you choose to blindly believe without examining possible contexts, none of us can do anything about that.

[brit2006]

Unlike booze, which is an escape from reality, cigarettes help one focus and are a symbol of man's achievement.

That someone can actually think this scares me. I have no problem if someone chooses to smoke after weighing the health risks. However this quote above sounds like it was read and immediately accepted as truth simply because Ayn Rand said it.

Would people here say that this kind of thinking is prevalant amoung Objectivists?

What causes this kind of thinking?

[Matthew J]

i certainly hope its not common among objectivists. this is one of the few points ive brazenly disagreed with Rand on. Cigarettes are number 2 on my list of stupid things not to do to my body. what causes this kind of thinking is, i think, hero worship. Ayn Rand is my Hero. but i wont smoke just because theres a dollar sign on my cigarette.

[dondigitalia]

Would people here say that this kind of thinking is prevalant amoung Objectivists?

I'd say it's 50/50.

EDIT- I don't mean to say that that specific point is about 50/50. But that kind of thinking is.

What causes this kind of thinking?

It could be any number of things, depending on the person.

**********

Incidentally, a friend of mine who is a physiologist has explained to me that the amount of alcohol one can consume before any faculties are impaired is highly dependent on genetics. Some racial groups have different general levels of tolerance than others. She has told me that Asians tend to have a lower level of tolerance, whereas caucasians can typically handle more. Those are only very general rules, though.

I think it's rather silly to put out a blanket statement like "drinking alcohol is immoral," when there are many, many people out there who can drink one or two (or maybe even more!) drinks without impairing their rational faculty.

Frankly, I could care less about knowing if somebody else is acting immorally with their alcohol consumption. If somebody wants to impair their rational faculty, that's their deal, but far be it from me to tell them exactly at what point such impairment occurs.

For myself, I'm off to the UCB O'ist Club meeting. And after that, as always, we're all going out for a beer.

Edited February 16, 2006 by dondigitalia

[RationalBiker]

Would people here say that this kind of thinking is prevalant amoung Objectivists?

What causes this kind of thinking?

I'm not sure you can get any meaningful answer for either question. The first concern would be; are you talking about people who understand and agree with the philosophy of Ayn Rand AND have correctly identified the reality of the context under discussion OR are you talking about anybody who would call themselves an Objectivist? Or are you talking about any variation in between?

The second concern would be; does this have any impact on the legitimacy of the philosophy? Your concern seems to be if Objectivists think this way as opposed to how prevalent this kind of thinking is among people in general (which could be equally if not moreso of concern as there are a lot more "other people" than Objectivists). I would suggest that the comment under review is not a position held exclusively by "Objectivists" in whatever fashion you mean.

The more important question to ask yourself is; have I identified the reality of the nature of alcohol, its consumption by human beings, its effects on human beings, its effects on me, and how should I act accordingly? Does my consumption of alcohol best serve the long term rational interests of my life?

I'm going to ask you a question before I make an erroneous assumption. Are your questions motivated by any desire to discredit the philosophy of Objectivism by pointing out what you believe to have identified as pattern of erroneous thinking among some people who may identify themselves as Objectivists?

[Capitalism Forever]

If I were trying to prove something about British intelligence, I wouldn't cite The Spy Who Loved Me as a source.

We've figured as much ... you must have undoubtedly been both shaken and stirred by the immoral actions you saw in that movie!

[brit2006]

I'm going to ask you a question before I make an erroneous assumption. Are your questions motivated by any desire to discredit the philosophy of Objectivism by pointing out what you believe to have identified as pattern of erroneous thinking among some people who may identify themselves as Objectivists?

I am not trying to discredit the philosophy, but trying to understand the thoughts and motivations of those who seem to completely misunderstand Objectivism.

I think that Objectivism is a tool to help me think clearly. It is not a tool to tell me what to think.

[softwareNerd]

Well, poor James Bond. He's excused; he acts for king and country.

Seriously though, let me put down my Riesling and make the devil's advocate case:

• At some dosage, alcohol affects one's consciousness.
  
• At higher dosages, the effect is worse than at lower dosages.
  
• Drinking alcohol in doses that have zero effect on one's consciousness is fine.
  
• However, how can one justify a dose that has some effect on your brain, even if it is (say) a very slight feeling of relaxation, that does not impair volition?
  
• Isn't such "fully-volition-relaxation" an ever-so-slight undermining of man's most valuable faculty?
  
• Isn't such "fully-volition-relaxation" an evasion of reality?
  

I find the above argument unconvincing, but I think its the best way of laying out the devil advocate's case.

How would one refute it?

[Capitalism Forever]

However, how can one justify a dose that has some effect on your brain, even if it is (say) a very slight feeling of relaxation, that does not impair volition?

Same way you would justify any other form of relaxation.

Falling asleep "inhibits your consciousness." Putting on skiing goggles "impairs your vision." Being on a high mountain "affects your respiratory system." Driving a hotrod ... er, never mind.