Replies

possession of rotgut, insofar as I know, is not, on account of the overturning of the Prohibition Amendment.

Yes, I'm afraid it is against the law. Here's a link about illegal alcohol still being made.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a0908.html

So. Once again, I ask you a very simple question.

PLEASE, PLEASE, name just ONE activity that has DECREASED after it was made legal.

PLEASE

Just ONE.

Would murder decrease if made legal?

Would rape?

Would robbery?

What criminal activity would?

Can't think of any, can you?

Then why, oh why in the world would DRUG ABUSE decrease if drugs were legalized?

The argument that it would is so absurd to begin with, that it's hard to have a rational conversation with somebody who thinks that legalization is a great idea.

If you still can't answer my ONE simple question or can't admit that drug usage would NOT decrease through legalization, then we really have nothing else to discuss.

possession of rotgut, insofar as I know, is not, on account of the overturning of the Prohibition Amendment.

Yes, I'm afraid it is against the law. Here's a link about illegal alcohol still being made.

What do you think rotgut is? Do you douse your fresh-cut whiskers with rubbing alcohol in the morning? Do you keep paint thinner around the house? Do you have dessert liquers in your pantry? I assure you that the possession of rotgut is perfectly legal today.

You have addressed production, not consumption, even though I was very clear about the legal distinction. And even here you are mislead. My mother legally produced 40 gallons of highly concentrated fermented rose hip booze every year, on a perfectly valid, and easy to get permit from the Oregon Alcohol Commission.

Would murder decrease if made legal?

The issues don't suffer from the same economic considerations. Few people are eager to buy your personal services as their murderer. The same cannot remotely be said for naturally occuring recreational drugs.

So, here's your basic consumer question: do you prefer to pay 17 cents a pound for coca leaves, and chew them at your leisure for months, or 17 bucks for a single small crystal of crack, and shoot it through your system in 20 minutes? Free consumer choice does not favor stepping on a viable product repeatedly to up the price and the concentration. This isn't just an academic appraisal--south american countries where coca leaf consumption is legal do not remotely see the kinds of crack traffic we do. The same holds true for the concentration of alcohol in alcoholic drinks after alcohol prohibition. The way prohibition distorts the market is by putting a huge premium on not getting caught by cops, a problem for which concentration is an ideal solution, for a multitude of reasons.

A great deal of the harm which is attributed to naturally occuring drugs is because they are distributed in a dangerous and unreliable manner because they are distributed by ruthless criminals who aren't concerned about their legal liabilities, their licenses, or their standings in the community or professionally.

If you still can't answer my ONE simple question or can't admit that drug usage would NOT decrease through legalization, then we really have nothing else to discuss.

How many people have, according to official hospital records, died of marijuana? Ans. virtually none, ever--unlike the case with aspirin, which kills about 1000 people year. If the use of marijuana increased 10-fold (which, of course, it won't) how many will then die of marijuana, according to hospital records? Ans. virtually none, ever.

If you still can't answer my ONE simple question or can't admit that drug usage would NOT decrease through legalization, then we really have nothing else to discuss.