Had prohibition not been repealled, it was likely that consumption would have surpassed pre-prohibition levels. If not for the great depression (And prior to that a major recession), it probably would have already surpassed it.
This doesn't even address the crime issues or costs.
From an overall perspective, prohibition was a failure.
It is debatable whether prohibition was a failure overall. But alcohol consumption went down, that is a fact. Supply and demand increased the costs. People couldn't afford to drink as much and they didn't.
No a lot. Your info is erroneous. There weren't good records kept of consumption during prohibition because the products were illegal. However, once liquor was legal again, as the stats show, consumption was down significantly.
we have a prohibition against murder but it keeps happening. Same with robbery, rape and theft. Maybe we should do away with those laws. Obviously they aren't working.
we have a prohibition against murder but it keeps happening. Same with robbery, rape and theft. Maybe we should do away with those laws. Obviously they aren't working.
and drinking/smoking pot.
let's see. violates someone else's rights. violates someone else's rights. violates someone else's rights. violates someone else's rights. doesn't violate someone else's rights. everyone sing along with me now! one of these things is not like the others.
But alcohol consumption went down, that is a fact. Supply and demand increased the costs. People couldn't afford to drink as much and they didn't.
actually, this fails to figure in homemade concoctions that were responsible for a lot of deaths.
consumption went down until organized crime could provide a supply again, which it did... and then it went back up. Prohibition created organized crime and a lack of any respect for the law. All prohibition laws create a lack of respect for the law.
comparing it to murder, rape and robbery ignores one key thing. You can drink without violating anyone's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. It neither breaks their leg nor picks their pocket.
there is a thing called a democratic society and they get to determine what is right and what is wrong. There is no "right" to drink booze. And there is no "right" to do certain drugs.
but the question is, jethro, how can you possibly justify something being wrong that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights? just because your moral high ground says so? like i said yesterday. you can shove that high ground so far up your ass that you're puking it up for all i care.
It now appears that the premise of the question that caused an uproar around Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was off base. In Kuwait two weeks ago, Army Specialist Thomas Wilson told Rumsfeld, "our vehicles are not armored ... We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north [into Iraq]."
But, according to senior Army officers, about 800 of the 830 vehicles in Wilson's army regiment — the 278th Cavalry — had already been up-armored when he asked the question. What's more, 20 vehicles remaining to be modified were in the process of being up-armored — and that was completed within 24 hours of Wilson's question.
ABC did a report this week on military families upset that Rumsfeld used a machine to sign condolence letters. It quoted two people who lost family members in Iraq, Ivan Medina and Sue Niederer. But what ABC did not mention is that both Medina and Niederer are long-time critics of the Bush administration.
Seven months ago Medina participated in an anti-Rumsfeld protest outside West Point, calling him a "liar and a war criminal." And just three months ago, Niederer interrupted a Bush campaign event in New Jersey, yelling and sporting a shirt that read: "President Bush You Killed My Son." She was arrested.
President Bush is, according to presidential historians, the first President in U.S. history to send out a Christmas card with a Bible verse.  Bush has been providing a Bible verse in his Christmas card ever since he took office. His first two Christmas cards used verses from the book of Psalms, the third took from the book of Job, and this year's returned to the book of Psalms.
but the question is, jethro, how can you possibly justify something being wrong that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights? But the use does infringe on other people's rights. The idea that drug use does not harm anyone but the user is erroneous. And society has a right to determine what rules it wants to live by.  just because your moral high ground says so? Ididn't make the laws and I do not have the power to impose them. It is apparent that the majority of people support them or they would be history. like i said yesterday. you can shove that high ground so far up your ass that you're puking it up for all i care. I bring my opinion to the table just like everyone else. If you don't like it-tough. But here is some more opinion. I think you are an immature little boy no matter how old you are chronologically. I pray that you grow up. My guess is you will and you will see how childlike your current point of view is.
If God has a plan mapped out for every living being and an unborn fetus is considered a living being, then logic dictates that abortion is part of God's plan for those particular living beings.
That's loony enough. Keep talking, JT, you're an eloquent spokesman for the anti-abortion movement. They ought to give you a bullhorn. You can hollar at 16 year old girls.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 12:26pm.]
Precisely. The majority of anti-choicers also subscribe to the "God's Plan" method of reasoning, which, in itself, is completely contradictory to their abortion argument.
If you were to ask me, I'd say they were flip-floppers.
If God has a plan mapped out for every living being and an unborn fetus is considered a living being, then logic dictates that abortion is part of God's plan for those particular living beings.
bad argument. were that the case there'd be no miscarriages either. if you want to subscribe to that plan, you have to accept that god doesn't necessariy want every living thing to come into existence outside the womb.
Shifting quickly from argumentum ad hominemto reductio ad absurdum.
In substance that is exactly what ares was arguing.
Then it started going up again.
Had prohibition not been repealled, it was likely that consumption would have surpassed pre-prohibition levels. If not for the great depression (And prior to that a major recession), it probably would have already surpassed it.
This doesn't even address the crime issues or costs.
From an overall perspective, prohibition was a failure.
It is debatable whether prohibition was a failure overall. But alcohol consumption went down, that is a fact. Supply and demand increased the costs. People couldn't afford to drink as much and they didn't.
People couldn't afford to drink as much and they didn't.
at least not until 1922 anyway.
In substance that is exactly what ares was arguing.
only in the mind of someone as closed-minded as yourself
But alcohol consumption went down, that is a fact.
Like I said.. Barely.
You're also assuming they could accurately track an illegal product. It's not like they were submitting sales numbers.
Like I said.. Barely.
No a lot. Your info is erroneous. There weren't good records kept of consumption during prohibition because the products were illegal. However, once liquor was legal again, as the stats show, consumption was down significantly.
You're also assuming they could accurately track an illegal product.
No YOU are assuming that.
Maybe it could work again. With this administration, and the nation in a moralisitic fervor over just about everything.
The Prohibitionists might have been ahead of their time.
we have a prohibition against murder but it keeps happening. Same with robbery, rape and theft. Maybe we should do away with those laws. Obviously they aren't working.
With this administration, and the nation in a moralisitic fervor over just about everything.
I thought you learned something, but you're still clueless. You're feeding right into the wacko's BS.
Same with robbery, rape and theft. Maybe we should do away with those laws.
Are you saying we should outlaw liqour again? If so, for what reasons?
"You're feeding right into the wacko's BS."
Tell that to the priest who says you have to go to confession for voting Democrat.
Same with robbery, rape and theft. Maybe we should do away with those laws.
Are you saying we should outlaw liqour again? If so, for what reasons?
Tell that to the priest who says you have to go to confession for voting Democrat.
voting for democrats, generally, is a vote against the church.
"Are you saying we should outlaw liqour again? "
Why the hell not? I could do it. The Speakeasy, buckets of beer, bathtub gin. Might be kinda fun.
Me and a couple buddies could recruit some neighborhood kids to do the running for us.
I feel kinda like an outlaw in this country, anyway. Might as well go the distance.
we have a prohibition against murder but it keeps happening. Same with robbery, rape and theft. Maybe we should do away with those laws. Obviously they aren't working.
and drinking/smoking pot.
let's see. violates someone else's rights. violates someone else's rights. violates someone else's rights. violates someone else's rights. doesn't violate someone else's rights. everyone sing along with me now! one of these things is not like the others.
Tell that to the priest who says you have to go to confession for voting Democrat.
If you're Catholic, is that statement incorrect?
It's pretty clear what the Vatican's stance on abortion is, if that's what you're refering to.
What's funny is, the priest at one Church we attend said basically the opposite. Said not to be a one issue voter....
actually, this fails to figure in homemade concoctions that were responsible for a lot of deaths.
consumption went down until organized crime could provide a supply again, which it did... and then it went back up. Prohibition created organized crime and a lack of any respect for the law. All prohibition laws create a lack of respect for the law.
comparing it to murder, rape and robbery ignores one key thing. You can drink without violating anyone's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. It neither breaks their leg nor picks their pocket.
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 22, 2004 at 10:24am.]
"If you're Catholic, is that statement incorrect?"
You tell me.
"What's funny is, the priest at one Church we attend said basically the opposite."
That you didn't have to go to confession for voting for a Democrat?
If so, it was right kindly of the Padre.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 10:56am.]
You tell me.
No, you tell me. You're the one that brought it up.
That you didn't have to go to confession for voting for a Democrat?
Not in those words, but sort of.
If so, it was right kindly of the Padre.
Maybe the problem is in your party and not Padre.
I think a Catholic can vote Democrat with full conviction and pride.
violates someone else's rights.
there is a thing called a democratic society and they get to determine what is right and what is wrong. There is no "right" to drink booze. And there is no "right" to do certain drugs.
I think a Catholic can vote Democrat with full conviction and pride.
but the question is, jethro, how can you possibly justify something being wrong that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights? just because your moral high ground says so? like i said yesterday. you can shove that high ground so far up your ass that you're puking it up for all i care.
It now appears that the premise of the question that caused an uproar around Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was off base. In Kuwait two weeks ago, Army Specialist Thomas Wilson told Rumsfeld, "our vehicles are not armored ... We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north [into Iraq]."
But, according to senior Army officers, about 800 of the 830 vehicles in Wilson's army regiment — the 278th Cavalry — had already been up-armored when he asked the question. What's more, 20 vehicles remaining to be modified were in the process of being up-armored — and that was completed within 24 hours of Wilson's question.
ABC did a report this week on military families upset that Rumsfeld used a machine to sign condolence letters. It quoted two people who lost family members in Iraq, Ivan Medina and Sue Niederer. But what ABC did not mention is that both Medina and Niederer are long-time critics of the Bush administration.
Seven months ago Medina participated in an anti-Rumsfeld protest outside West Point, calling him a "liar and a war criminal." And just three months ago, Niederer interrupted a Bush campaign event in New Jersey, yelling and sporting a shirt that read: "President Bush You Killed My Son." She was arrested.
President Bush is, according to presidential historians, the first President in U.S. history to send out a Christmas card with a Bible verse.  Bush has been providing a Bible verse in his Christmas card ever since he took office. His first two Christmas cards used verses from the book of Psalms, the third took from the book of Job, and this year's returned to the book of Psalms.
but the question is, jethro, how can you possibly justify something being wrong that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights? But the use does infringe on other people's rights. The idea that drug use does not harm anyone but the user is erroneous. And society has a right to determine what rules it wants to live by.  just because your moral high ground says so? Ididn't make the laws and I do not have the power to impose them. It is apparent that the majority of people support them or they would be history. like i said yesterday. you can shove that high ground so far up your ass that you're puking it up for all i care. I bring my opinion to the table just like everyone else. If you don't like it-tough. But here is some more opinion. I think you are an immature little boy no matter how old you are chronologically. I pray that you grow up. My guess is you will and you will see how childlike your current point of view is.
no, it doesn't.
your drinking in no way infringes on my rights.
I think a Catholic can vote Democrat with full conviction and pride.
I don't.
Unless that Democrat is anti-abortion. Which you won't find many, if any in MN, because the DFL won't allow it.
[Edited by on Dec 22, 2004 at 11:38am.]
Tell me, O member of the American Taliban, can I find the way to the Ministry of Virture using Mapquest?
[Edited by on Dec 22, 2004 at 11:42am.]
Am I wrong?
Yes.
How so?
If you're against abortion, don't have one or advise and assist someone else to have one.
You're not doing any of that at a polling place.
If you're against abortion, don't have one or advise and assist someone else to have one.
You're not doing any of that at a polling place.
A heartless smear.
You should admire the Taliban, jethro.
If you're against abortion, don't have one or advise and assist someone else to have one.
That makes no sense to someone who believes abortion to be murder.
To me that's the same as saying: "If you're against raping Rick, don't rape him or advise and assist someone to rape him".
Your comment makes even less sense when you put it into context of our discussion of the role of religion.
Quite simply, you think organized religion has no place in politics.
You're not doing any of that at a polling place.
Well no, because I don't agree with your mentality.
[Edited by on Dec 22, 2004 at 11:58am.]
If God has a plan mapped out for every living being and an unborn fetus is considered a living being, then logic dictates that abortion is part of God's plan for those particular living beings.
Thus, to oppose abortion is to oppose God.
Theoretically speaking, of course.
That assumes we have no free will.
"To me that's the same as saying: "If you're against raping Rick, don't rape him or advise and assist someone to rape him".
Rape is also illegal, so I don't think it's an adequate comparison.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 12:10pm.]
I find it a perfect comparison.
Check my edits. Rape is illegal.
Abortion should be just as illegal as raping you.
But if you only want to consider legal status.
Maybe we could pass a law allowing rape.
"Maybe we could pass a law allowing rape."
That's loony enough. Keep talking, JT, you're an eloquent spokesman for the anti-abortion movement. They ought to give you a bullhorn. You can hollar at 16 year old girls.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 12:26pm.]
Precisely. The majority of anti-choicers also subscribe to the "God's Plan" method of reasoning, which, in itself, is completely contradictory to their abortion argument.
If you were to ask me, I'd say they were flip-floppers.
If God has a plan mapped out for every living being and an unborn fetus is considered a living being, then logic dictates that abortion is part of God's plan for those particular living beings.
bad argument. were that the case there'd be no miscarriages either. if you want to subscribe to that plan, you have to accept that god doesn't necessariy want every living thing to come into existence outside the womb.
That's loony enough.
I agree, it is loony. That's the point.
Your only defense is it's current legal status.
I'm using your own argument to show how absurd your argument truly is.
[Edited by on Dec 22, 2004 at 12:35pm.]
Why is it the likes of George Soros and Moveon.org have zero limitations on their involvment in politics, yet you wish to limit organized religion?
"Your only defense is it's current legal status."
To me, and much of the law enforcement community, that's a considerable distinction.
To me, and much of the law enforcement community, that's a considerable distinction.
So raping you would be perfectly acceptable?
If it were legal of course?
[Edited by on Dec 22, 2004 at 12:43pm.]