Posted on 08/06/2020 12:38:42 PM PDT by Ozguy1945
I believe Douglas MacArthur got it right when he described the nature of freedom in the place of his birth The Wild West of America: “……. nowhere else has there been the savage turbulence, the striking vitality and the raucous glamour of the struggle for law and order in the American West.”
Only a few decades later the nation swung the opposite way with the bold experiment of Prohibition. Why did that policy fail? What was good about it?
For all my life abstaining from alcohol has been my personal choice.
But now, at the age of 63, an old friend from Veterans Affairs in Australia has prompted me to make art celebrating alcohol.
I don’t want to drink but …..... its good to be alive.
The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.
We tried that once.
We got Al Capone and friends....................
Any virtue taken to its limit becomes a vice. That includes freedom.
And 2nd amendment infringements by way of the 1934 national firearms act.
Hell no.
It’s the same BS that the government should have anything to do with what we put in our bodies. We don’t need an ATF, a DEA, nor an FDA telling us we can’t carry firarms, do weed, *OR* HQC; it’s simply none of anyone else’s business unless and until we deprive them of life, liberty or property what we consume, carry, or say.
The second someone thinks they should have the slightest say in what I ingest, read, write, or carry for self defense I consider them to be better off dead and a blight on the republic.
It’s not a vice until it deprives another person of life, liberty, or property.
The natural limits on freedom are the consequences that arise from exercing that freedom. In the US we have passed on a lot of those personal consequences to the government and society as a whole. Hence the abuse of freedom.
So we don’t have to so much limit freedom as much as letting the person that abuses freedom suffer the consequences.
I’m a little slow, but something I never realized until someone pointed it out just the other day —
When people want to ban alcohol, they had to actually pass a Constitutional Amendment.
When people decided that alcohol should no longer be banned, they had to pass another Constitutional Amendment.
When people decided marijuana was bad, they took a vote and then said, “That’s stuff’s illegal.”
When some states decided it might not be so bad, those states took a vote and said, “That stuff’s OK.”
Double-standard much?
Exactly.
No. I am all for temperance — which is a personal choice. I am not for prohibition — which is the choice of the state and, in our previous experiment with it, created other problems.
Prohibition was a law for women.
The temperance movement was largely pushed along by women. When they got their right to vote in 1920, it was also the first major law that this voting block pushed.
It failed, or course, just like so many other ridiculous/idiotic laws fail, go ignored or are selectively enforced. These are laws to appease certain groups, they make “political sense,” but make little rational sense when it comes to the nature of man, trying to enforce them, if that is really what the majority wants (when they figure out what that means for them)...
Have anything to do with the fact alcohol is regulated and taxed and marijuana is not? Serious question.
“So we don’t have to so much limit freedom as much as letting the person that abuses freedom suffer the consequences.”
One of the ultimate truths stated so clearly and simply. Thank you.
I gave up alcohol back in March to strengthen my immune system. I was never a heavy drinker (a couple of glasses of wine with dinner maybe 2-3 times a week) yet I feel more focused and productive without it. Maybe it’s just a placebo effect or maybe it really did make a difference. I think it should be a personal choice.
Swing back towards even more “zero tolerance” laws? None for me, thanks!
Marijuana is not taxed or regulated because it is illegal, not the other way around. I live in a state where it is legal, and it is taxed so highly the legal distributors are having problems competing with the illegal ones who don’t charge tax. As for regulations, I read the text of Prop 64. It was longer than all the other propositions combined.
Benjamin Franklin: Moderation in all things, including moderation! The extreme consequence of moderation is that the creativity in many individuals wouldn’t exist.”
Sure. Why not. We’re repeating all of our other past mistakes... Let’s throw this bucket of napalm on the fire while we’re at it...
However, the only lives alcohol improves are those of the people who make millions from selling it. We've been conditioned to believe that fun cannot be had without alcohol in one form or another. Dine at a fine restaurant and you must have fine wine. Go to a ballgame (not lately) and you must have a few beers. Socialize with friends and you must have a few cocktails.
The constant drumbeat of advertising makes it clear from an early age that you are a loser unless you have a drink in your hand, but you are very cool, attractive and desirable with one.
Meanwhile, the death and destruction continues to mount, wrought by people who have simply had one too many and get behind the wheel anyway or those tend to become agitated and violent after a few drinks or those who tragically slip inexorably into abject alcoholism.
My call is not to prohibit alcohol, but instead to avoid it on an individual basis. Clearly, MacArthur is a fine example of lifelong avoidance as is our current president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.