Saving us from ourselves.
Why is it so hard to get through to people that prohibition does not work?
They banned alcohol with the 18th amendment. Soon after, many thousands were poisoned and blinded with fake booze spiked with various chemicals, organized crime went wild with illegal booze profits. Innocents were killed in turf wars, police corruption became rampant with the mafia payoffs to look the other way and get this...people still drank.
Substitute the word drugs for booze and you have the exact same story a few decades later.
What's even worse, is with the prohibition of guns, the criminal element has a monopoly on violence and everyday folks are rendered helpless. No lives are saved when innocent people are disarmed. Look at the gun crime rate in Chicago and Washington DC...guns have been totally banned there for decades and the death rate from shooting surpasses that of many third world shit holes.
But Hammer....some things are bad and dangerous and people shouldn't have them. Why not make laws banning bad or dangerous things? What about the children?
Take cigarettes for example, Cigarettes are bad for your health. No doubt about it. Imagine if congress and the president decided it was time to ban tobacco completely in order to save us from ourselves and force us to quit an unnecessary, dangerous and nasty habit.
Sounds good on the surface...good intentions, public health, lives saved right?
Not quite: There are 44 million smokers in the United States. You think that demand is going to go unfulfilled?
Tobacco and cigarettes would be smuggled in by criminal gangs and people would smoke in their basements or wherever they could get away with it. People caught with illegal tobacco would be sent to prison. Crime bosses get rich, the government fills our prisons with nicotine addicts and people are killing and being killed for a lousy carton of smokes or the street corner to sell them on.
It's time to face the facts. criminalizing the possession and use of inanimate objects is downright silly. Instead, punish people who hurt others with their irresponsible and dangerous behavior.
But that would make sense...
Labels: Politics
posted by Bill Rowland @ August 24, 2008
35 Comments
35 Comments:
I'm expecting a chocolate ban will be next so I'm stocking up now.
I hope to make extra cash by selling fudge on the street corner. Hint: I'll be the old lady in the long trench coat with big pockets.
hammer - i argue with our "libertarian" son about some of these issues on a daily basis on the subject of drugs and alcohol - he asks, "mom, if they're not harming anybody but themselves, why should you care?" my thinking is i care the moment they step into a vehicle and put the rest of us at risk - who pays then?
as for most other things, sure - we harm ourselves.
this is but one way the socialists amongst u.s. will see to it that the rest of u.s. tow the line - NO MEDICAL CARE for you if you overeat or smoke - no auto insurance for you if you've gotten tickets for speeding or not wearing your seatbelts!
are we not meant to govern ourselves?
Chevy: Good plan!
Nanc: problem is, they are getting into cars drunk and stoned no matter what the laws are.
Recently here in Texas you have to be self insured if you wish to ride without a helmet...which to me is much better than a law which forces someone to behave a certain way.
What a can of worms this would be! And it is the government's ALREADY over involved-ness that would make it so.
Can you imagine if they did legalize certain drugs and what the Federal Drug Administration would do to make sure we were safe using those drugs? We would wait years on approvals while they ran tests and trials. And still, it would cause a black market because of that wait and then because of the taxation that they would put on it.
I think that medical marijuana should be legalized THIS MINUTE. It is an herb for Pete's sake and there are sick people who could benefit from it.
Jen
OK, maybe not an herb exactly but you get my drift.
Ok, I somewhat agree on the governing ourselves, but who protects the children of parents who drink and drive with them in the car or smoke around them from conception on? I know, no one I guess. I suppose we just like to think hose types of people will obey the law when really the have already shown they don't care. Good post!
The nanny laws do indeed need to go. That crap wasn't in place when we were kids, and we made it just fine. Well, mostly just fine.
Crappy parents are crappy parents, and good parents are good. Laws don't change that.
Chicago's recent attempt at banning foie gras comes to mind. Save the duck! Damn the man!
Hammer-how do you feel about colleges pushing to lower the drinking age to 18?? To me it's a very bad idead, your thoughts?
Damn Straight, Hammer. Crime and murder over getting the money for drugs is more of a problem than someone sittin at home smokin' dope.
How many liquor stores get knocked over and robbed? Plenty. Do the crooks take the booze? No, they take the money to buy drugs. Legalize and let people who should OD, OD. A Darwinian thought, eh?
Hey, and let me know if I can use your Obama/Biden rap picture. You and I were obviously on the same page with that!! Cheers!!
With the enactment of the Volstead Act, people also took to making their own "booze," concocting dangerous rotgut-like stuff in their bathtubs, which had zero FDA approval (I don't think the FDA was around yet to monitor this stuff), and subsequently proved to be very dangerous and oftentimes lethal.
We can learn a lot from the ratification and then reversal of the 18th Amendment (it was such a bullshit amendment, too, it had no business being on the Constitution of our nation in the first place...dumbshits put it there). Unfortunately, we don't.
Well, if one thing starts to make sense, pretty soon people are gonna expect -everything- to make sense, and we can't have that.
Jennifer: Govt interference always leads to some kind of trouble. We have all kind of herbal supplements that they don't currently regulate..I hope it stays that way.
justlacy: Indeed correct. Unfortunately the cops will have to catch folks who endanger their children too bad it has to come to that.
lewis: Yep, all the laws in the world can't stop people from doing bad stuff, the laws are actually making people less responsible.
dana: and berkely banning coffee not made by union labor, where does it end?
evil lunch lady: They changed the drinking age to 21 when I was in highschool, all it did was cause kids to binge drink at their own parties. The drinking age never made much difference either way. Some counries have theirs at 15 with much fewer problems than we have. The colleges want to keep the drinkers on campus in bars instead of them roaming the streets.
matt-man: it is estimated that 80% of murder and property crime is tied to the trafficing and getting money to buy illegal drugs. I say legalize it and put the gangs and thieves out of business.
erica: Seems we never learn our lessons as a society. It's frustrating.
choochoo: We can't have things that make sense what on earth would we do with ourselves ;)
Problem with legalizing drugs is the lack of quality controls. If the government now says its ok, then people also expect the govt to oversee the safety. We need prescriptions for dangerous drugs now. How many doctors will prescribe heroin so Joe Blow can get high? They used to but found it wasn't so great after all. I think that's the conundrum. The govt couldn't let it go unsupervised. Supervision costs money and implies safety. These things aren't safe and harm people's health. Health care costs more money and on and on . Legalization would definitely increase use. For instance, I don't buy marijuana because it is illegal. But I'm pretty sure I would if it wasn't. Maybe not all the time, but there are times when a puff or two would be beneficial I think. (Having chronic pain)
jeannie: you are right the gov couldn't keep their hands out of it but I think the dangers of increased use would be outweighed by the reduction of street gangs and people robbing and killing to buy drugs.
YES! YES! Vote Libertarian, while you're at it, puhleeeeze!
1st and 2nd Amendment all the way, get rid of the IRS (Fair Tax,maybe?), legalize drugs and focus on rehabbing those with problems instead of criminalizing them, less government...oh, it'd be great, wouldn't it?
I was one of the few people I know who was absolutely thrilled when Gingrich shut down the government back in 1997. Because, when they're "working", they're PASSING MORE LAWS. Also, I absolutely LOVE government gridlock. Love it, love it, love it. Because that means they're stuck and they can't get anything done! Would that there'd be much more of that.
There is a lot to be said for the legalization of marijuana... I worry about the harder drugs though... it needs more discussion.
So weird... I had this exact same conversation over the weekend. You hit the nail on the head. (Sorry, not a hammer joke, swear.)
nigel: I usually do when there is one on the ticket. I enjoy govt stalemates and gridlock myself.
em: I guess what I'm trying to get across is not legalization but decriminalization. Violent criminals control the supply of dangerous drugs these days and meth heads are blowing themselves and their children up during manufacture. If we take the crime out of the equation maybe we can get these people some help.
I so agree with you hammer. Maybe the gun crimes would go down if we cut off those criminals hands so they can't hold or shoot the guns. hahahaha
personally i say kill the one's that kill. But people think I'm to harsh.
Whatever.
random: Thanks, it's really hard for law abiding people to imagine that laws don't work on bad people.
Too bad that people just weren't motivated to make them, knowing of the damage they do.
If nobody produced cigarettes, hard alcohol or recreational drugs, well, that would be an excellent start.
Addiction and hurtful, dangerous behavior begins with the person doing it, and the producers of the substance cooperate in its continuation.
(doesn't matter whether it is legal or black market - it is still perpetuating the issue of people who want their fun and want it now, and find those particular range of substances an acceptable way to have it...)
They need each-other to survive and continue the problem. Without one part of it in place, the other would vanish...
burfica: Am so for kill the killers and cut off the hands of bank robbers and other bandits.
Annie: sadly it's our animal nature. Elephants raid villages and steal their stores of alcohol, many animals eat rotten fruit for the sole purpose of getting drunk. I'm not sure what makes people want to escape. But it sure does cause a lot of problems. It won't stop being a problem until we evolve past it as a species.
I drank alcohol once. It made me want to rape, kill, and blog.
I'm sorry, but how do you add anything to that post. It's a perfect example of DUH! It's not the goverments responsibility to protect us from ourselves. We are all big boys and girls, take responsibility for your own lives. I teach that to my kids everyday, which is hard to do considering the state in live in (thanks Arnold)...
I'm writing you in on my ballot in November.
Its like the Bobbies in England. Robin Williams said it best. They do not carry guns. So the say "STOP!, or I will have to say Stop again!"
Lets Legalize the drugs and prostitution and then tax the shit out of it!
Hammer & Lewis Burrel,
Spot on and I always ask those that want to continue or further the state:
"Just exactly how did we have one citizen left standing in this nation, by 1968 without all of the laws passed since then?"
Most have to ask me why 1968 and it is real simple response- Google the 1968CGA.
I will wager that there are many folks here who can remember riding a bike without a helmet, let alone even considering one. Further, I will wager that are many folks here can remember seeing people drive around with a beer- and their hearts are probably palpitating at the memory. But, I want to point one key fact that so many forget, and that is if property is damaged, or someone is unfortunately killed, then the individual is charged with the related crime, but NOT until the crime has occurred. What the DUI laws, pushed by MADD and the latest Carrie Nations have done, is turn someone who has had one or two drinks in an hour into a criminal with the laws they have deemed to cry for and seen passed. Now, you may ask just why should I care, and I will ask you just exactly how do so many become charged with these crimes and you will respond that the nice policeman saw them, someone reported them, or they killed someone. However, I will ask you to take a real hard look at checkpoints (with their abuse of the 4th Amendment) and ask you if you really think, that nice policeman, who does not have quotas, just perhaps start randomly targeting a driver and waiting for that Nervous Nelly to make the smallest of mistakes?
For further reading, I suggest the following:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5116
Further reading can be done via your favorite search engine.
No, the government is NOT my Mother or Father- nor is it yours.
Once again, very good post Hammer.
jihadgene: Hopefully not in that order :)
mike: Thanks, I'm trying to teach my kids to take responsibility but I'm afraid when they get out in the world they will be in the minority.
barbara: Thanks! I'll start making posters ;)
flyinfox: I agree...why on earth would the gov not want this source of revenue..uneless they are getting more from confiscation of property and money of people caught with drugs.
WP: GCA 68 is one of the biggest travesties ever shoved down our throats.
I would imagine that the assassinations of king and kennedy made the gun grabbers drool with delight at the blank check it gave them.
Thanks for the links!
Wow, so behind in blog reading.....
the men post below is so funny!
the dem bashing one above, not so much. hehe
But this one in between is right on! For the most part I agree.... allow people to have whatever it is they want provided they use/do it without hurting others. And should that happen, strict punishments.
Makes sense to me! I know I ask this often, but why are you not in charge?
I figure that when government makes laws that are supposed to protect me from myself in actuality the laws are to limit my freedom to take responsibility for my actions.
I start backing up when I hear "for the good of society" from politicians and preachers because it always means they want more from me..
You should have stated common sense in the last sentence.. then linked to that post... hee haw!
There's justification for the government to regulate antibiotics--If you take them wrong, you can create a resistant infection and pass it to me. There's justification for the government to limit the sale of many drugs to adults. There is also justification for the government to regulate labeling, so it is accurate. If you want to sell heroin laced with dog crap, you need to label it as "heroin with 4% dog crap"
The idea that if the government hasn't banned it, it must be safe has to go. Laws should protect you from me, but they shouldn't protect me from me.
Frederic Bastiat stated in "The Law" that laws were created because men had property, not the other way around.
The law is supposed to prevent the loss of life, liberty and property by force or fraud. There is no such thing as a "victimless crime"; if someone has not been wrongfully deprived of life, liberty or property through force or fraud there is no crime.
Post a Comment
Welcome back
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home