Paranoia.

I firmly believe that a lot of present day government and even thought in general has to do with stopping people from thinking. It manifests in fear politics used by the united states as an example. I think the concept of blind faith in religion revolves around this principle too. That to stop people from questioning too far. Everyone wonders at a certain age about all the things where the line goes grey about if god exists or not. If religion was not present it would lead to chaos out of so many opinions. In a way, it’s justification for blind faith. Western thought fails to see this in certain aspects such as this one. Analyzing the current scenario, one can see how over-liberal thought leads a path to race destruction. As a result of the abandonment of religion, many people no longer follow a way of life that leads to healthy survival, strong genetics and general prosperity. High divorce rates, homosexuality, obesity and many other societal deviations are manifestations of this point of view. Religion, even theirs, if followed the way it should, would reduce these phenomenon and have a direct positive effect on the prosperity of the human race in general.
Another point to argue though is does everyone need ALL guidance from religion? Many things prescribed in religion state a way of life or a conclusion or a lesson that many people are capable of understanding and accepting without any influence. It’s an argument against, for example, alcohol. The bigger plan is to stop alcohol from being used negatively. It increases a propensity to commit generally negative acts but doesn’t guarantee it. If consumed responsibly to the full extent of being responsible, there is no more rationale to stop it. It’s just a matter of saying that X percent of people will be fine but Y percent of people will go wayward. But what about that 40% who will be fine? It’s like an insurance policy. Somebody with exceptional driving skills could do fine without car insurance because s/he knows that their chance of getting into an accident is significantly lower, from a generally enhanced hand eye coordination ability/intuition that is natural to him or her. Such a person, if capable enough, will have a pretty low chance of being in an accident that totals the car and incurs a complete loss.
An immediate counterargument follows that this does not justify not having an insurance policy to help you back onto your feet if something like this were to ever happen. What if you have money though and it doesn’t hurt you too much financially? After all, many unavoidable things happen where lots of money is involved and must be spent, healthcare for example. If I were clever enough and had money, I would have my own investment sitting for any event where something like this is at risk, and bypass the insurance company itself which makes my policy. Because I have the ability from access to money. People without money don’t. Draw a parallel to the innate ability to differentiate right and wrong and making one’s own decision, versus religion pre-defining your mindset and making your decisions for you. Here, the mindset given to all of the population is like money. Some people have lots of ‘money’ (foresight and conscious decision making ability) to do something like that and can circumvent the ‘insurance company’ (religion) and achieve a similar outcome in the long term as someone adhering to prescribed paths. It’s almost like saying I want to go from A to C. I can go straight there and its faster, but there’s a route that goes around, is longer, but is so scenic and enjoyable. In the end I get to the same place but I got there differently. BUT. The route through B has a group of cannibals out to get anyone who comes through the entrance. Now if I have a gun and I can see their tracks and understand where they are, I’ll have a pretty great chance of eliminating the threat and safely enjoying the rest of the scenic route without hassle. I’ve seen many people make it through without a scratch through this route, and these are the same people who got injured going down a more difficult route with more cannibals :D which I crossed safely. Maybe I’m just thinking too much now.
Of course, religion is open to interpretation. The route from A to C has a bunch of welcoming looking people who are in fact cannibals themselves in disguise, but just so happen to be easier to fend off. However, many people will still get caught and eaten. And that’s when a suicide bomb goes off.
If religion doesn’t want me to think so much, why can’t I consume alcohol for a similar reason, that is, to stop thinking so much all the time? It would be interesting if religion (Islam) was thrust the same way upon lots of people the way it is now EXCEPT with the difference that alcohol would be not just legal but ritualistic, like marijuana is for Rastafarians. If you want people to follow your religion so badly, let them drink. It’ll just make them accept Islam better and stop them from thinking so much about why it’s illegal. After all, I would think the experience of being under the influence would be a) more exhilarating especially in the rebellious teenage years and b) not such a big deal at least the first several times I try it. I would naturally question the ban and say hey, I know how to handle myself when I’m under the influence, especially if I’ve not consumed excessive amounts. All this does is undermine faith in the rest of the concepts which are laid out for one to believe and follow without questioning! If it were legal I wouldn’t have questioned it, and potentially not question many other principles laid out either. If I’m not smart enough to know how not to use alcohol I might as well grow a beard and get an AK47 from my friendly neighborhood tableeghi jamaat.
I realize alcohol increases a person’s propensity to be reckless but that’s no reason for complete banning. It’s like banning driving cars. Car accidents kill so many people. Cars can be used recklessly. You might say well drunk driving is such a good anti-alcohol argument, but a sleepy person is arguably as unfit to drive as a drunk one. Does that mean sleeping less than 8 hours a day be made illegal? In a way, it almost is. From natural physical requirement. Being sleepy all the time is a physical reminder that one can’t keep doing something like operate heavy machinery while sleepy. This physical aspect allows something like this to keep itself in check without the need of laws. Alcohol doesn’t have this aspect (apart from throwing up, but that’s at a point when a person has exceeded one’s own limit & is hence not sufficient). There hence needs to be a law to keep it in check from being misused. Misused is the keyword. The fact that it’s not hard to go from use to misuse doesn’t help either.
The negative repercussions of complete legalization would be significantly more, however, as in the end there will always be people without enough responsibility over their actions who make undesirable decisions as can be seen in statistics for alcohol related problems. In the end, it all boils down to majority is authority and survival of the fittest. It is a rational conclusion that the fittest must be within the majority and that following religion takes you down the road to success by a route tested to be fail-safe for the majority. There will always be aspects that I do not want to follow, that are laid down for people to follow and represent a path suited for most, but not all. In a utopian world where everyone understands the consequences of alcohol, there would be no need for a ban, as is the case for so many other things that are banned. Unfortunately, the majority in most places in the world will remain with people who would allow something like alcohol to be misused and such a system should be kept in existence for people to follow and to avoid anarchy. The main way is education. Until then the ban does make sense. Regardless of bans or no bans, there will always be consumption, as in the end, people will always turn to substances to get through life. It’s a question of being strong enough to not use substances for these purposes.
I also do not support how alcohol is available in some developed countries only to people 21 or older. 21? Really? That just sounds like the government wants you to start drinking then. So, you, as a person with free will, have full access to another mind numbing substance but only at an age where most people form more opinions. The fact that something becomes legal at an age will only increase the likelihood of higher and more frequent consumption at that age. Seems like someone doesn’t want you to think. It’s there to give you something to do in your spare time when you’re not contributing to the economy, but at the same time stop you from thinking productively. It’s there to make you forget about your own troubles and the troubles you have with the government and how unfair the system is, and accept the system more easily. Hence, legalization at age 21 caters to these agendas.
Legalization at 18 makes sense, as the real question is whether or not a person has enough rational sense to not engage in harmful use. They show murder, rape and obscenity and expect 18 year olds to understand the negative aspects of such actions. But they won’t let you drink. Just so that it stays exciting and doesn’t lose its charm until you reach a point in life where it caters to their agenda as well, since by then you’re more likely to be working and be part of the system and need something to take your mind off life and not question the long rod you’re sitting on.
You may ask, then, that is it better to trust a plan made by a mind rather than a plan made by the creator of this mind? This is where I think free will is brought in, and is the reason why the holy books are themselves not over-specific about many matters. Following many things the prophets did (as is prescribed in religion) should be something that a person should be capable of doing on one’s own. It’s just that not everyone has the ability to be exposed to so many viewpoints or have the time to form their own, such as people on the poverty line or a person born into a place with strong negative influences as in low-cost housing. I see it as “well if you can’t figure out what to do from what it says in the book, look at how the prophets did it and you’ll be safe.” Safe. That doesn’t mean there’s more than one solution. Life isn’t a math exam. Even a math exam has questions with different solutions.