Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[Roscoe]

A local community passes a law prohibiting the sales of certain types of liquor, and you assert that isn't a prohibition, it's a limitation.

LOL

[philman_36]

A local community passes a law prohibiting the sales of certain types of liquor, and you assert that isn't a prohibition, it's a limitation.
LOL right back at you. You cited...
"Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists."
Then, you said...Local prohibitions continued around America for centuries.
How does a local community passing a law prohibiting the sales of certain types of liquor constitute a prohibition and not a legal limitation? A legal limitation is not the same thing as a prohibition in that a prohibition would encompass the possession, manufacture as well as the sale of all types of liquor, not just "certain types of liquor". Even your hypothecized prohibition allows the sale, and presumably the possession and manufacture of some forms of liquor so it isn't an out and out banning, or prohibition.
And you accuse me of Newspeak? HA!

[Roscoe]

How does a local community passing a law prohibiting the sales of certain types of liquor constitute a prohibition

Are you stoned?

[philman_36]

Are you stoned?
Are you stupid?

[Roscoe]

So now your doublethink has you arguing that prohibitions aren't prohibitions. Astounding. And very funny.

From dictionary.com:

prohibition

n 1: a law forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages; "in 1920 the 18th amendment to the Constitution established prohibition in the US" 2: a decree that prohibits something [syn: ban, interdiction, proscription] 3: the period from 1920 to 1933 when the sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited in the United States by a constitutional amendment [syn: prohibition era] 4: refusal to approve or assent to

[philman_36]

prohibition - 3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes
That plural ending means all liquors. You're stating that only certain limitations, or prohibitions as you prefer, are enacted against certain liquors.
Know what Ouzo is? That is a legal limitation as other liquors are still allowed to be manufactured, transported, and sold. It is not prohibition against all liquors.
You're trying to narrowly define the word prohibition according to your desires.

[Roscoe]

1. sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes

2. That plural ending means all liquors.

Very funny indeed.

[philman_36]

"a law forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages"...plural, meaning all alcoholic beverages otherwise it woulds state "a law forbidding the sale of a certain alcoholic beverage"!
A local community passes a law prohibiting the sales of certain types of liquor, and you assert that isn't a prohibition, it's a limitation.
You aren't banning the sale of all liquors, just certain ones!

[philman_36]

Very funny indeed.
Thank you.
You're very stupid, indeed.

[Roscoe]

Know what Ouzo is? That is a legal limitation as other liquors are still allowed to be manufactured, transported, and sold. It is not prohibition against all liquors.

So by your own "reasoning" (chuckle), since aspirin is legal a prohibition against pot isn't a prohibition.

You've shoved your foot so far down your throat that you should be able to wipe your shoe.

[Roscoe]

You aren't banning the sale of all liquors, just certain ones!

National prohibition didn't ban the sale of all drinks containing alcohol, so again by your "reasoning" (chortle), Prohibition wasn't prohibition.

[philman_36]

So by your own "reasoning" (chuckle), since aspirin is legal a prohibition against pot isn't a prohibition.
And how do you draw that conclusion? I see nowhere from what I've stated where you can draw that conclusion.
Aspirin is neither legally limited, being freely sold OTC with no limitations, nor is it prohibited as it is manufactured, transported, and sold widely. Pot is prohibited.
You've shoved your foot so far down your throat that you should be able to wipe your shoe.
Why don't you lick my foot and my shoe?

[Roscoe]

And how do you draw that conclusion?

They both drugs.

Do you know how to tie your shoes or are they the velcro kind?

[philman_36]

National prohibition didn't ban the sale of all drinks containing alcohol, so again by your "reasoning" (chortle), Prohibition wasn't prohibition.
Oh, very Orwellian of you too.
However, prohibition was prohibition, not just limited in scope like your hypothetical situation was.
SEC. 3. No person shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Act, and all the provisions of this shall be liberally construed to the end that---the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented.
Liquor. . . . for nonbeverage purposes and wine for sacramental purposes may be manufactured, purchased. sold, bartered, transported, imported, exported, delivered furnished and possessed, but only as herein provided, and the commissioner may, upon application, issue permits therefor. . . . Provided, That nothing in this Act shall prohibit the purchase and sale of warehouse receipts covering distilled spirits on deposit in Government bonded warehouses, and no special tax liability shall attach to the business of purchasing and selling such warehouse receipts. . . .
By your "reasoning" (chortle) limiting the sales of only "certain types of liquor", not all liquors, is a prohibition. Of course, you've got to narrow down your definition of prohibition first, don't you.
There is that "except as authorized in this Act" part that just suits you.
And thanks for the picture of you, but it wasn't necessary.

[philman_36]

They both drugs.
Very dialectally revealing. Thanks. I see now why you limit your responses as much as possible.
Do you know how to tie your shoes or are they the velcro kind?
I can't believe you forgot slip-ons.

[philman_36]

So by your own "reasoning" (chuckle), since aspirin is legal a prohibition against pot isn't a prohibition.
And how do you draw that conclusion?
They both drugs.
So by your "reasoning" (chortle) drugs are all prohibited simply because "they drugs". Funny, a whole bunch of drugs are manufactured, transported, and sold with no limitations whatsoever, much less prohibitions, or bans, on them.
U so funne.

[Roscoe]

So by your "reasoning" (chortle) drugs are all prohibited

They don't have drug stores where you live?

[Texaggie79]

Ok, lemme take ya'll to real estate appraiser school for a minute.

NO ONE REALLY owns property. You do not REALLY own your own property dcwusmc. You only own a bundle of rights to it. The physical land is not your's. Technically ALL land in the US is physically owned by the government. You don't own the air rights, you may or may not own the mineral rights (if you are in a subdivision or town you probably don't). Building rights......... if you are in town, you need a permit.


If you want to know what rights you own to the property you think you own, go to the courthouse and pull an abstract. Therein, you will see which rights you have to the property.

[Texaggie79]

States are free to write all the silly laws they want, -- as long as such laws do not violate human rights as per the constitution.

WOW! You are coming around tpaine. You finally admitted it. Hard drug prohibition laws by states are not violations of human rights, therefore, are not unconstitutional.

[Texaggie79]

Which is the more direct threat?

The issue at hand is the constitutionality of the law. There is no guaranteed right to practice witchcraft, nor smoke crack.