-Caveat Lector-
Bob, there are many "figures" from prohibition, it is a highly propagndized
subject. Many are spurious. And interesting fact from prohibition is that the
age of imbibement went younger and the treatment of teenage alcoholics
increased. Look at the liver disease rates and other statistics and you will
find that was no significant dropp in actual alcohol consumption,—how can you
have true records of an illegal market?—many studies point to increased
consumption and much social disruption. Prohibition was brought about by the
subjectation of generation to the temperance message propaganda and was used
by many for many purposes. Before refrigeration fermented potables were the
norm throughout society. Moderation is always best. Marijuana prohibition is
completely without constitutional standing and the government has no
authority to prohibit possession of plants that come from God, they do not
have the authority. To make alcohol illegal, which is a manufactured item, a
constitutional admendment had to be passed. The Drug War is unconstitutional.
Drug Peace not war.
And yes regulate it, tax it. Here in Oregon, the sale of liquor is regulated
and only available from state stores during certain hours. Personally, I like
that model much better than liquor on most corners and supermarkets.
Om
K
In a message dated 10/28/99 8:39:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< What everyone forgets about Prohibition is that it *also* resulted in a per
capita drop in alcohol consumption of 30-40 percent, IIRC. In the sense that
its intention was to discourage the public consumption of alcoholic
beverages, *it succeeded*...and when you compare it to the "deregulated"
situation today, with deaths from drunk driving on the increase, an epidemic
of binge drinking on high school and college campuses, etc., etc., the
conclusion is obvious. Sure, Prohibition allowed criminal syndicates to
expand rapidly--but it didn't *create* them; they were already in existence.
It's all very well and good to argue for decriminalization of drug
possession and use, but not if the result is going to be an even greater
epidemic of abuse than we're seeing now. What makes sense is, instead,
*legalization* of drug use: regulate it, tax it, control it, the way alcohol
was controlled in most states following the repeal of Prohibition, making
the sale of the drugs pay for treatment programs for those who can't handle
them. If that marks me as a tax-and-spend liberal, so be it, but it makes no
sense to me simply to throw open the floodgates so that a few super-rich
plutocrats can get even richer. >>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
