Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gondring
Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with reducing the point that was made by SUSSA.

Rachel's Ecstasy would have still been illegal if the moonshine model is followed.

487 posted on 07/26/2008 6:04:55 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies ]


To: Mojave
Rachel's Ecstasy would have still been illegal if the moonshine model is followed.

Nope. If Ecstasy were made legal but highly taxed, then you could say "Rachel's untaxed Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" was illegal"...but in that case, there's little likelihood she'd have been dealing in untaxed MDMA, with brand name Ecstasy available. (Of course, the UN prevents Ecstasy from being "brand name" but that's another story.)

Or do you fail to recognize that there's little reason to buy an illegal form of alcohol when alcohol has been made legal but is highly taxed?

493 posted on 07/26/2008 6:13:43 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson