Posted on 07/14/2018 8:42:17 PM PDT by Ken H
Actually, the temperance movement did most of its good before Prohibition was enacted. Education and social pressure works - the blunt instrument of law serves primarily to enrich criminals.
Who "needs" alcohol - or tobacco? Should we ban them?
Including the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol ... right?
At least one scholar of the 20s rejects the notion that Prohibition “caused” organized crime. Rather, it just substituted booze for gaming & prostitution.
“alcohol”
It’s bad enough to pay government charity to any alcohol addict wasting away at home, I’m not interested in adding drug addicts to the mix.
Supreme court has already said benefits can’t be denied to drug addicts. Several states have tried that.
Get government out of the charity business and then talk to me about legalizing drugs. To me, the sequence is critical, just like when I say don’t talk to me about amnesty until the border is secured.
To make things “fair” for the drug crowd, I’d rather see alcohol made illegal again than see drugs made legal in a welfare state.
Including the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol ... right?
It’s bad enough to pay government charity to any alcohol addict wasting away at home, I’m not interested in adding drug addicts to the mix.
Are you interested in subtracting alcohol addicts from the mix?
Supreme court has already said benefits can’t be denied to drug addicts.
False - the Supreme Court has not ruled on any such law.
To make things “fair” for the drug crowd, I’d rather see alcohol made illegal again than see drugs made legal in a welfare state.
Our last ban on alcohol had the primary effect of enriching criminals - rather like our current ban on marijuana.
Straw man - nobody here has said Prohibition “caused” organized crime.
Rather, it just substituted booze for gaming & prostitution.
Sounds like nonsense ... why wouldn't they maximize their take by selling them all?
He has excellent stats & makes a great case that it’s correlation not causality.
Don’t have it in front of me but we cited many of his works in “Patriot’s History.”
Some people confuse liberty and libertine. One is good, the other isn’t. Our Constitution, our liberty and our Republic are no good without those aforementioned basic bedrock standards of right and wrong set down by God.
I will disagree with your point about sugar and caffeine, however.
In your case, I’m glad that your dreadful medical condition was able to be cured or alleviated by this product. If it were to be used exclusively for medical purposes as directed by a doctor, there would be little to no issue here, but then you already know that was not my argument in the first place.
Still, the ultimate goal is complete legalization across the board for all illegal narcotics.
Dude, your nose is growing.
Again, you make the argument for removal of most laws since folks will somehow “profit” from them.
No one needs tobacco, and we have a near de facto public ban on it already.
Some alcohol usage can have beneficial health effects.
I didn’t say that it did, only that organized crime got into the game once Prohibition went into effect, expanding from gaming/prostitution/protection rackets, et al.
“Our Constitution, our liberty and our Republic are no good without those aforementioned basic bedrock standards of right and wrong set down by God.”
Cannabis is a plant. It’s not good nor evil. People who project evil upon a plant that can do absolutely nothing by itself is hardly rational, IMO. Also, our Constitution is USELESS & BANAL if we allow our gov’t to abuse it as we have with the current unconstitutional Controlled Substances act.
“In your case, I’m glad that your dreadful medical condition was able to be cured or alleviated by this product.”
Thank you. I saw an interview of a young woman who had horrible arthritis & severe depression. Her arthritis was so bad she has a hip & ankle replaced as a teenager. She was asked once if she could chose between her crippling arthritis & depression. Which one would she keep.
“Artritis”, she said. “Living with depression is hell on earth”. I agree with her
“If it were to be used exclusively for medical purposes as directed by a doctor, there would be little to no issue here, but then you already know that was not my argument in the first place.”
Another lovely fallacy. I can read you mind equally as well as you can read mine which means not at all lol.
It's the abuse of it and the negative health risks associated with it for those not under the care of a physician.
"Also, our Constitution is USELESS & BANAL if we allow our gov’t to abuse it as we have with the current unconstitutional Controlled Substances act."
If you consider it to be unconstitutional. I do not.
Thank you. I saw an interview of a young woman who had horrible arthritis & severe depression. Her arthritis was so bad she has a hip & ankle replaced as a teenager. She was asked once if she could chose between her crippling arthritis & depression. Which one would she keep.
“Arthritis”, she said. “Living with depression is hell on earth”. I agree with her
I'd actually disagree with this, too. I've lived with depression and other ailments for most of my life, and as bad as depression is, constant physical pain is NOT preferable.
"Another lovely fallacy. I can read you mind equally as well as you can read mine which means not at all lol."
Again, I'll state it plainly that the only reason for its legit usage is entirely for medical reasons (and I don't mean a hangnail, either). If you disagree, well, then so be it. I will never agree that it should be legalized for non-medical reasons.
“Without God-given basic societal standards, what do we have ?”
Nothing. And that’s the absolute goal of the Left.
This is the correct analysis: organized crime already existed fully formed by 1920. What it did was shift energy to booze from gaming and prostitution.
The evidence is that it did not “appear” and was not “caused” by Prohibition, but that Prohibition was a better money maker than its other operations.
We cover this at length, especially in the notes, in “Patriot’s History of the United States.”
“It’s the abuse of it and the negative health risks associated with it for those not under the care of a physician.”
This reads like something straight out of Fedzilla or a progressive manifesto.
Who are you to decide when someone’s use = abuse?
Who are you to tell someone they cannot make their own health decisions?
By what authority do you come to these conclusions?
“I’ve lived with depression and other ailments for most of my life, and as bad as depression is, constant physical pain is NOT preferable.”
1st off, I am VERY sorry you have or have had depression issues. I pray if you are not presently free of it that you will be asap!!! 2ndly, have you looked into dietary methods of treatment? I ask because I am about to go on a zero carb diet to see if I can get to a place where I need no medication of any kind for depression/anxiety. I’ve read a lot of anecdotal evidence, testimonials of people who’ve successfully achieved what I have with cannabis via zero carb & straight carnivore.
In any case, I wish you nothing but the soonest possible recovery from your depression & other ailments.
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.