Posted on 05/26/2005 11:28:12 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
How do winos afford their next bottle? Do they all commit crimes, or do many of them raise enough money for their legal drug through panhandling, can-collecting, and other nonviolent acts?
Quite a few of them do commit violent crimes.
Of course, you can snatch a bottle of whiskey from a delivery truck or a store shelf quicker and less violently than you would be able to get something out of a pharmacist's locker.
The alcohol high is different as well.
People on meth and coke tend to be even more violent than drunks.
And $10 of Everclear can keep even a hardcore wino happy for a couple of days.
$10 of product will keep a hardcore methfreak happy for maybe an hour or two tops.
An alcohol habit right now costs a tiny fraction of what a narcotic/coke/speed habit costs. And if the latter group were legalized, alcohol would still cost substantially less than half of what a hard drug addiction costs.
Clever.
I have a different view than that of a liberal or druggie.
I'll bet that your view of the Commerce Clause is no different than that of a liberal. According to how you view the Constitution, is the Federal government acting in accordance with original intent in interfering in intrastate drug policies, such as medical mj?
" We don't let young children smoke or drink, so why should we expose them sugary foods and trans-fat?"
Oh geez are you serious? Letting kids have a treat now and then is good for them. Sorry, kid, you can't enjoy life until you're 18. Here's a bran muffin. It's all about moderation. Hell, dark chocolate is good for you in many ways. Deny something to a child that is good for them and makes them happy because it is 'sugary'? Gues what, fruit is sugary too.
When I was growing up, I got to take swigs of beer from my older brother's bottles. I could have a drink of wine or mixed drinks when my dad made them or at christmas. These were all occassional things that made me realize it wasn't any real big deal. There was no 'forbidden fruit' vibe to beer and drinking.
Fast forward to high school and college years: All the kids that were forbidden to touch booze go on weekend binges and vomit on their friends. Me? I have no urge to drink because I realize I don't even like the taste of it and it's nothing special for me. All the other kids thought they were being 'cool' because they were sneaking a drink. I realized there was nothing really cool about it. It's just something I could take or leave and decided to leave it.
It's about exposing your kids to the good and bad things and helpign them learn the benefits and consequences of each. Then and only then can they learn to make decisions for themselves because they understand it fully. You try to shield your kid from everything and the first time they're out of your grasp, they're likely going to try everything under the sun you said was bad for them but they didn't get to try themselves.
Agreed, but who says that a treat has to be a sugary food or twinkee? I grew up drinking Coca-Cola and once I stopped drinking them for a few months and switched to water, I don't even like the taste of them any more.
Establishing good eating habits at a young age is so important. I saw this fat kid at Six Flags last summer - it was hard to guess his age because he was so fat but I am guessing he was around 5-8 years old. Anyway, there he is getting a "treat" - a huge ice cream cone.
For a kid that has good eating habits, eating something bad every once in a while isn't an issue. The point is that most family don't reserve ice cream, twinkees, soft drinks, candy, donuts or potato chips for treats - they are consumed on a regular basis everyday.
"Specifically, what prohibitionists and other socialists don't understand is that they can't repeal supply and demand for a particular sector of the economy just by wishing."
Forces for Prohibition were pretty much the same as the religious right today; imposing their own version of morality and social good, upon everybody, through government.
I see no linkage between prohibition and socialists.
I see more of the opposite. The 60s carryover want liberalization, not prohibition.
Today Europe, ruled by socialists to various degrees, has more liberal drug laws, than non-socialist locations.
Of course, you can snatch a bottle of whiskey from a delivery truck or a store shelf
Or, as I said, you can panhandle or collect cans for the money.
An alcohol habit right now costs a tiny fraction of what a narcotic/coke/speed habit costs.
Yes, because alcohol is legal.
And if the latter group were legalized, alcohol would still cost substantially less than half of what a hard drug addiction costs.
Even if this is true---which you've given no reason to believe---the prices would come much more into line, with a consequent reduction in crime.
Agreed, at least about some of the "religious right."
I see no linkage between prohibition and socialists.
They all think government power can and should be used to overcome basic human nature. Alcohol Prohibition was championed by the so-called "Progressives" and opposed by many conservatives.
You're right, doggone it. I confused him with Tommy Hodson, who went to LSU.
Good for the Asian parents, whoever they are. Fact is that Marv Marinovich was such a ruthless taskmaster and spent so much money on Todd's development (even enlisting advisors from the former Soviet Union) that it became news. And it's also fact that most parents of superstar athletes aren't like Marv. What did, say, Donovan McNabb's mother know that Marv didn't?
What is your objection to my statement, exactly? Do you think Marinovich pere is unquestionably innocent of the charge of bad parenting?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.