Posted on 02/25/2005 10:22:10 AM PST by nyg4168
Nonsense. Ever hear of the "forbidden fruit effect"?
We keep getting DU trolls who post this sort of crap here to "prove" the stereotype that conservatives are fascist Neanderthals.
Machine-gun shootouts between rival alcohol distributors were committed:
1. by the Easter Bunny
2. while alcohol was prohibited
3. while alcohol was legal
4. by Muslim males between the ages of 18 and 45
Legally, the issue already belongs to the states, unless and until an amendment to the US Constitution, similar in wording to the 18th, creates the necessary federal power.
English isn't your first language, is it?
Wild-ass guesses doesn't trump objective facts. Sorry.
I do believe it is like a death sentance to the one who is being treated like they are dead. There is a difference between 'tough love' and total abandonment.
If my apology isn't sufficent, well... I can't help that. I'm finished here.
If X rises AND falls with Y (as murders rose and fell with the rise and fall of alcohol criminalization), the case is stronger for a causal connection than if X and Y only rise (or only fall).
Here's one possible answer for the reduction in homicides in the 30's:
"But data from this era are sparse and sometimes inaccurate, and experts are unsure what caused the fall. The end of Prohibition in 1933 probably had some effect
Thanks for supporting my point. One need not argue that the ONLY cause of dropping death rates was the end of Prohibition, in order to conclude that ending substance prohibitions can be expected to lead to fewer dealer-caused deaths.
on stemming the violence that had been associated with the illegal distribution of liquor. But just as significant might have been advances in medical care made during that era, which would have saved many an aggravated assault from becoming a homicide." -- bos.frb.org
Interesting speculation. What were those advances and when did they occur?
What's your point?
The last time I checked, constitutionally, the "issue" may be regulated by either the states or the federal government.
Bunk. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot stretch the Commerce Clause, which is carefully worded to exclude intrastate commerce, into including intrastate commerce. The "substantial effects" test was a fabrication of the FDR court (as Justice Clarence Thomas has recognized).
You continually bring this up as though this is the goal of legalizing drugs -- fewer scumbag deaths.
Why are you focusing on murders, especially scumbag murders? Aren't the overall deaths associated with the legalization decision a factor?
You're all concerned about a murder rate of 9 per 100,000 -- today, alcohol "murders" 40 per 100,000. THIS is an improvement?
Personally, I'd rather the 9 scumbags offed each other, than 40 civilians die.
Because IrishCatholic asked, "What were the crime rates?"
especially scumbag murders?
Innocents don't get killed by rum/drug-runners?
Aren't the overall deaths associated with the legalization decision a factor?
If adults want to risk their own lives, that's their business.
today, alcohol "murders" 40 per 100,000.
Where's that stat from? And why the quotation marks?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Carefully worded! It says "among the several states".
It does not say "between the several states". It does not say, "Congress may only regulate interstate commerce". It does not say the regulation stops at the state line.
It says "among the several states".
"The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot stretch the Commerce Clause ... The "substantial effects" test was a fabrication of the FDR court ..."
I disagree. Justice Hughes used the phrase, "having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic" in the 1914 Shreveport Rate Cases to rule that Congress could regulate intrastate traffic:
"It is for Congress to supply the needed correction where the relation between intrastate and interstate rates presents the evil to be corrected, and this it may do completely, by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that it is necessary or appropriate to exercise the control for the effective government of that commerce.
That was 20 years before FDR.
That's careful ... just not stated in today's parlance.
Why? Don't you believe that alcohol kills over 100,000 people per year?
"And why the quotation marks?"
Because alcohol cannot murder. But, nevertheless, 100,000 people die each year from alcohol and dead is dead, whether it's due to alcohol or a bullet from a Tommy gun.
Fine. Then we agree that the Founding Fathers carefully said, "among".
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.