NyQuil® contains 10% alcohol (20 proof).
Posted on 08/28/2006 7:29:35 AM PDT by tang0r
It turns out that alcohol is legal for the simplest, most nostalgic, and most American reason of all. Despite its risks and harmful side-effects, adults are reserved right to drink because they are independent adults in a free country. For all of the empty rhetoric about economics and black markets, the end of Prohibition was due to a single principle: even if drinking may be bad for society, government has no right to keep the people from doing it. The ability to get drunk is an inalienable right that we have forever confirmed with the 18th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
I agree. The article said that "Alcohol has little or no proven medicinal value". What an ignorant statement. Even back in the cowboy days, alcohol was used for medicinal reasons. Heck, even farther back than that. Marijuana also has medicinal value, but some people refute that based only on their personal "issues". LOL
I'm not really against any of my friends smoking pot, or even doing a joint once in a while myself...on like Christmas or my birthday.....but I don't think smoking as a way of life is a good thing.
And I smoked pot steady for more than 20 years...
I just think it pretty much wastes people's lives away. And is even worse in some ways than alcohol is.
Still trying to sell that P.O.S.
What a logical, fact-filled rebuttal.
I have not done so. Quit playing the liberals' game of wrapping yourself in victimhood.
I am not going to change my opinion due to your haranguing me about it.
I believe that; I also believe that lurkers recognize who is presenting actual facts and logic, and who is not.
It is my opinion that legalizing drugs is a bad idea, and unfortunately for you, there are more voters who share my opinion than yours.
For the time being. But if only one side has any facts or logic to present, I'm confident that many opinions will change.
What exactly do you consider that statement to be? I consider that statment as saying..."your stupid".
I consider you to be wrong on the issue.
I do not think that:
1) legalizing drugs will eliminate the black market nor will it put production of drugs into the hands of more responsible producers.
2)The taxes generated by the sale of these substances will not offset the destruction wraught by the users/abusers on their families and on society as a whole.
3) Will not reduce crime, due to lower prices, but actually increase crime due to increased availablilty.
This is just a start of the counters to making drugs legal. This is why drugs will never be made legal and to suggest, as was postulated in earlier posts, that the opposite will be true is irresponsible. These are large risks that the majority of the population can identify and are unwilling to accept.
It also begs the question, if drugs are made legal, and it proves to be a bad idea...then what? Re-criminalize?
I not agree.
Two part question. Part 1. Does Congress have the power to regulate (prohibit) the interstate commerce of marijuana? Not whether or not they should regulate marijuana. Simply, do they have the power to do so?
There, that is better, per my experience, as I recall it, in my "dual tasking, it went together like bacon and eggs," recreational days.
Yes, congress does have that power, BUT, they have passed and enforced laws that go VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY far beyond merely regulating the interstate commerce of dope.
Yeah, but it's related. If some kind of in-state activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating, Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to pass legislation controlling that activity.
Congress regulates interstate airlines. Even though a private pilot is flying from one part of his state to another, Congress may also regulate his activities if they interfere with interstate airline traffic.
Of do you trhink they're not allowed to do that?
If drugs and prostitution were legal, do you deny there would be an increase in those activities?
As they do the ability to regulate interstate commerce of alcohol. Or tobacco. Or carrots. Which is why the 18th amendment was pretty useless, given how much alcohol is transferred interstate.
"If drugs and prostitution were legal, do you deny there would be an increase in those activities?"
Yes there would. But both of these activities involve people that have a God-given right to screw up their lives as they see fit. Alcohol will always cause far more problems than prostitution or pot.
Did it happen in the Netherlands?
I would assume so. After all, a whole section of the city of Amsterdam is dedicated to it.
But that's a different culture. For example, the Netherlands has a severe problem with teen drinking. So if the teens there would rather drink than do drugs, how can you compare them to teens in the U.S.?
Though don't let that stop you from trying.
The 18th was desired not required. The reformers thought it would be more permanent than a simple federal statute.
About half the states had already banned alcohol prior to the 18th, but the states lacked the power to stop interstate shipments from "wet" states to "dry" states. Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act prohibiting this interstate commerce, but it was ineffective.
The only solution was a nationwide ban which, it turns out, was unpopular. I bring this up to point out that turning the drug legalization decision over to the states would be equaly fruitless.
NyQuil® contains 10% alcohol (20 proof).
And so do I!!!!!!
Nonsense. First of all, the passing of laws that touch on things that may AFFECT i.s.c. is immoral, corrupt, evil, horrible, f*&^ing liberal nonsense. As has been pointed out by every true conservative for 1 billion years (G. Gordon Liddy almost every day, in fact) regulating everything that may AFFECT i.s.c. is in fact, license to regualate EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME, might possibly affect interstate commerce. When the horrible liberal scum sucking pieces of sub human filth on the Sup. Court were passing FDR's unconstitutinoal laws, they noted (in the 'Sick Chicken' case) that Farmer Joe growing his own chickens on his own farm that were meant to be sold only LOCALLY could, possibly affect i.s.c. because his customers might not now buy their chickens from an i.s. chicken seller. F*&*ing crap, and a perfect example of how regulating things that MIGHT AFFECT ISC, instead of regulating interstate commerce itself, is, in fact, a licesne to REGULATE EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD. The US Cons gives the Cong. the power to regulate ISC, the US Cons DOES NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOES NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! give the cong. the right to regulate everything that MIGHT AFFECT ISC. If I am a doctor prescribing pot to my patients, or a dope dealer selling my homegrown weed to all my friends and and relatives, then the fed has NO BUSINESS sticking their filthy noses into it.
Yep.
"It is generally held that the enactment of a statute or constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture annd sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, operates to repeal and annul all previously existing laws which permitted such manufacture or sale under regulations or restrictions."
A Treatise on the Laws Regulating the Manufacture and Sale of Intoxicating Liquors,
by Henry Campbell Black - 1892
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.