I'm out. I have some on order but they won't be in till the end of the week.
Though I’m not a drinker, I hate the pain and loss caused by alcohol over the centuries, but it doesn’t maintain a worldwide network and sub-culture of narco-terrorism and death.
Actually it does. Alcohol abuse causes millions of deaths annually. And alcohol prohibition a la the Capone era is what caused the gangsterism. (Is that a word? It is now.)
Once alcohol was re-legalized the gangland warfare to control its distribution ended. We have narco-terrorism precisely because the stuff is illegal. When was the last time you saw the Budweiser guy and the Miller guy shooting it out over territory?
It doesn't happen because the alcohol trade is legal, regulated, and taxed.
Now I personally think that deliberately putting something in your body that makes one more stupid than one already is falls under the heading of a very poor long term survival strategy. But that doesn't mean I think we should make it a Federal matter.
There's absolutely NO Constitutional authorization for Congress to tell us what we can and can not put into our bodies. They can't tell us not to smoke pot any more than they can regulate the amount of salt in our food. In fact if you allow them to regulate one, you've pretty much agree that they can regulate anything they wish.
Best,
L
There’s absolutely NO Constitutional authorization for Congress to tell us what we can and can not put into our bodies.
Vin Suprynowitz points out that, in the 1910s, everyone acknowledged that Congress had no Constitutional power to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol, and that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to allow it.
Yet, in the 1930s, while alcohol Prohibition was being repealed, no Constitutional Issue was perceived when Congress passed the FDA Act, which prohibited the use of drugs without Fedgov permission.