Your original post, which is not even a coherent or grammatical sentence. I have to infer what you meant by it, then you claim my inference is incorrect though my inference made a better argument that you are capable of -- which is not surprising since your original statement is more nonsense than fact. "Hooch" is by definition illegal and shipping it implies marketing of it, so there will always be incentives to ship it, to avoid liquor taxes. Or if you carelessly meant homebrewed liquor by "hooch", then in order for homebrewed liquor sales to be legal, the tax revenues on all liquor would have to be eliminated to forego any competitive advantage by the unlicensed "hooch" makers, an unrealistic expectation. More likely your "hooch" would be taxed, which would preserve the black market for your "hooch". Furthermore in shipment, if liquor is not properly declared then it's also illegal because any significant quantity of alcohol is dangerous to ship, and therefore has to be declared (just as if you were to ship rubbing alcohol). Finally "At one remove" is ambiguous. So the bottom line is you wrote a sloppy sentence outlining your flawed thinking and were called on it. You've been backtracking ever since.
Try re-writing your screed and standing in line on Stossel's show the next time he has Ann Coulter as a guest punching bag. You can ask a question, right behind the similarly-minded misguided kids fighting for repealing laws against gay marriage.
And, at one remove, of the War on Drugs that incentivizes such system-playing - nobody gets threatened by rumrunners seeking their stealthily-shipped hooch, because there's no incentive to stealthily ship hooch.
Your original post, which is not even a coherent or grammatical sentence. I have to infer what you meant by it
It made perfect sense as a clause attached to the sentence to which it was a reply (see above).
"Hooch" is by definition illegal
Semantic gymnastics. Nobody's impressed.
You've been backtracking ever since.
Rejecting your clumsy misreadings is not "backtracking."
I notice you avoid addressing any substantive points - here they are again:
"the war on terror doe not incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people (and so my anti-WoD argument does not apply there)."
"I argue not for anarchy but an end to futile and counterproductive drug bans."
lol......