The booze barriers

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, January 1, 2002 | Jacob Sullum

[JohnHuang2]

It's doubtful that gin, rum, vodka, whiskey or tequila will replace champagne as the preferred beverage of the new year, no matter how many commercials for distilled spirits appear on NBC. But the network's recent decision to carry such ads revives an old controversy about the evils of liquor as compared to those of wine and beer.

[AKbear]

We may agree on more than you think.

No doubt about it. Your irony was not lost on me.

[steve50]

I tried to get my hands on some Gold label Jack for 10 years. they wasted it all on those fools in DC.

[steve50]

With your Senator Ted, I thought you might be more receptive to this.

[SamAdams76]

The Constitution is a Living Document. It must evolve and adapt to meet the needs of the 21st Century. We live in a far more complex society today and people today need to be protected for the common good.

If you knew about the Constitution, you would already know that the issue of Prohibition has been addressed once and for all with the repeal of the Eighteeth Amendment in 1933. Good luck trying to get it reinstated.

[bassmaner]

If you knew about the Constitution, you would already know that the issue of Prohibition has been addressed once and for all with the repeal of the Eighteeth Amendment in 1933. Good luck trying to get it reinstated.

I think Architect's comments (and steve50's) were dripping with sarcasm.

Truth is, considering the illegality of the WOD, why do you think they'd even bother with a constitutional amendment if they ever decided to re-impose Prohibition?

[Eddeche]

** bump for a darn good question **

[Pharmboy]

They didn't SMOKE the hemp; but they DRANK the ethanol.

(And, as you likely know, the General, [George Washington] grew hemp AND ran a distillery).

[Judith Anne]

You may be right. ;-D

[steve50]

Our legistators and courts have ruled that the Pure Food and Drug act are all the authority they need for prohibition. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment to reclassify alcohol and tobacco.

[Polonius]

Your compelling arguments have won me over — let's ban the insidious destroyers of youth, alcohol and tobacco! It'll take a lot more prisons, a few hundred thousand more DEA agents and a big fat tax increase to fund it all (from law enforcement to the courts to treatment centers). But, after all, it's all worthwhile if we save ONE person from him or herself.

However, you fail to see the third substance that should join alcohol and tobacco in the Schedule 1 category. I speak of caffeine, the drug that has enslaved millions of Americans who can't get through a single day without a fix. These poor souls, like those in the grip of tobacco, cry out to be helped through mandatory treatment programs. It may seem harsh, but cleaning these people up whether they like it or not is the only way to put a stop to this addictive drug's destructive effects on health, family and society.

Keep up the good work. Perhaps with threads like this, more people at Free Republic will get the message about Prohibition.

[steve50]

Now you have gone too far, polonius. Your personal freedoms end exactly the same place my personal vices do. With out coffee, the industrialized world would cease to exist.

You Sir, are no friend of freedom.

Thx to all who played this game, especially those of you who "got it".

[Slip18]

It took me awhile to "get it," Steve. And at first I was p*ssed off. But then I decided there was some good discussion in here.

I think we should prohibit sugar, also. Dentists have been saying it for years.

Let's see, now our list of no-no's can be:

1)Alcohol;
2)Cigarettes;
3)Caffeine;
4)And, of course, my choice, Sugar.

Anybody else what to prohibit the use of anything?

[dcwusmc]

If I have to spell it out for you, they AIN'T serious. They are seriously mocking the DANEs of FR, and it's working!