Prohibition was a Progressive scam

[Votto]

“It started in the Civil War with the levy on beer and whiskey to help fund the war, and it never really went away.

We can ignore the Whiskey Rebellion. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion

The Women's Christian Temperance Movement was behind prohibition. They were just one of the reform movements that had picked up steam by the time prohibition was passed. Even Hollywood which was in New York at the time moved to California and started it's own self censorship to keep the government from censoring them. I don't think it was a plot. I think it was heavily divided. You could drink and you could buy it with a prescription from what would later become Walgreens.

I disagree. The Progressives had been looking to create a Federal income tax for some time.

On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”

So since a federal income tax was unconstitutional, they simply had to add it to the Constitution. But no one likes change, so they had to create a crisis of sorts with decreased revenue coming into the Federal government that was needed.

“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.”

-Herbert Hoover

So yea, I disagree. It was a cabal.

 

[Votto]

It is already ILLEGAL for children to buy alcohol and nicotine products. It is already illegal to buy most drugs except for Marijuana in most states. (still illegal everywhere on the Federal level). Yet kids still get alcohol and cigarettes (and vaping) illegally and certainly buy Marijuana and other drugs ILLEGALLY.

It is also illegal to come across the border illegally, but if there is no resolution to do anything about it, nothing will change.

Operation Wetback showed the country that a border wall was not needed. Ike simply passed laws saying illegals were not welcome and could not be hired. No sanctuary cities, no promise of US taxpayer welfare, etc. So they self deported.

Today, you can pass as many laws as you like on the issue but Progressive will simply ignore them, so these laws are 100% useless.

This is why I support a border wall. Since laws don't mean anything anymore then perhaps a border wall might reduce their numbers.

 

[Disir]

“It started in the Civil War with the levy on beer and whiskey to help fund the war, and it never really went away.

We can ignore the Whiskey Rebellion. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion

The Women's Christian Temperance Movement was behind prohibition. They were just one of the reform movements that had picked up steam by the time prohibition was passed. Even Hollywood which was in New York at the time moved to California and started it's own self censorship to keep the government from censoring them. I don't think it was a plot. I think it was heavily divided. You could drink and you could buy it with a prescription from what would later become Walgreens.

I disagree. The Progressives had been looking to create a Federal income tax for some time.

On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”

So since a federal income tax was unconstitutional, they simply had to ad it to the Constitution.

You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.

 

[dblack]

People are going to use drugs, and alcohol (which is also a drug) no matter what the government does to ban it, or make them illegal. Same with people using guns in violence. It doesn't matter what stupid laws get passed.

The notion that a war on drugs can never work is a lie.

Singapore's policy keeps drugs at bay | Michael Teo

In Singapore, the drug abuse rates decline every year and is the lowest in the world.

LOL! Ever go to Singapore? I have. It is a POLICE STATE, not a semi free society like the U.S. Very poor analogy.

I dunno. I think Votto makes a good point. The war on drugs is winnable, if you want to live in a police state. Same with most social engineering ambitions (discrimination, income-inequality, abortion, etc...). As long as we are ready to give up freedom, government can be used to force all kinds of shit on society.

 

[Votto]

“It started in the Civil War with the levy on beer and whiskey to help fund the war, and it never really went away.

We can ignore the Whiskey Rebellion. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion

The Women's Christian Temperance Movement was behind prohibition. They were just one of the reform movements that had picked up steam by the time prohibition was passed. Even Hollywood which was in New York at the time moved to California and started it's own self censorship to keep the government from censoring them. I don't think it was a plot. I think it was heavily divided. You could drink and you could buy it with a prescription from what would later become Walgreens.

I disagree. The Progressives had been looking to create a Federal income tax for some time.

On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”

So since a federal income tax was unconstitutional, they simply had to ad it to the Constitution.

You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.

What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.

They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.

In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.

 

[Votto]

People are going to use drugs, and alcohol (which is also a drug) no matter what the government does to ban it, or make them illegal. Same with people using guns in violence. It doesn't matter what stupid laws get passed.

The notion that a war on drugs can never work is a lie.

Singapore's policy keeps drugs at bay | Michael Teo

In Singapore, the drug abuse rates decline every year and is the lowest in the world.

LOL! Ever go to Singapore? I have. It is a POLICE STATE, not a semi free society like the U.S. Very poor analogy.

I dunno. I think Votto makes a good point. The war on drugs is winnable, if you want to live in a police state. Same with most social engineering ambitions (discrimination, income-inequality, abortion, etc...). As long as we are ready to give up freedom, government can be used to force all kinds of shit on society.

Well in Singapore if you are caught dealing drugs you are simply shot on the spot. Those who abuse drugs get three chances, and if they get 3 strikes then they are locked up for life.

I would never argue shooting people on the spot, everyone needs due process, but I'm an ardent defending of capital punishment for those who murder. I simply think that if you infringe on a persons right to life, you have no right to life yourself. Otherwise, you have anarchy and no need for government which is needed because people are inherently flawed morally.

.
Is dealing drugs that murder people much different than taking a gun to their head?

I also have a problem with a never ending revolving door for those who abuse drugs. People need to be held accountable

 

[Pilot1]

Maybe I am a bit cynical, but the "War on Drugs" has been used by government to justify huge expenditures and create large bureaucracies like the DEA. How many agencies do we need to fight the war on drugs? FBI, DEA, DHS, BATF, State Police everywhere, local police everywhere, just to name a few.

How much money has been spent? Do we still have illegal drug use in the U.S. on a large scale? YES!

 

[Votto]

Maybe I am a bit cynical, but the "War on Drugs" has been used by government to justify huge expenditures and create large bureaucracies like the DEA. How many agencies do we need to fight the war on drugs? FBI, DEA, DHS, BATF, State Police everywhere, local police everywhere, just to name a few.

How much money has been spent? Do we still have illegal drug use in the U.S. on a large scale? YES!

No arguments there.

If what I'm saying is correct, the only motive Progressives have is increasing a centralized government, without really addressing the drug problem.

 

[dblack]

Well in Singapore if you are caught dealing drugs you are simply shot on the spot. Those who abuse drugs get three chances, and if they get 3 strikes then they are locked up for life.

Yeah. I get it. Fortunately, the US has rejected that kind of dystopian scenario.

 

[Crepitus]

Does anyone know that alcohol kills more people than any other drug every year?

Alcohol Kills More Than Drugs | Morningside Recovery

So is this fact a walking advertisement that legalizing such drugs is detrimental to the population at large?

Do any libertarians want to tackle this?

Yes it is. As long as alcohol remains legal, other such drugs should be as well.

As libertarians, we think if you wish to kill yourself with booze or drugs you should well be allowed and it is not the government's place to stop you.

It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.


So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

 

[dblack]

Does anyone know that alcohol kills more people than any other drug every year?

Alcohol Kills More Than Drugs | Morningside Recovery

So is this fact a walking advertisement that legalizing such drugs is detrimental to the population at large?

Do any libertarians want to tackle this?

Yes it is. As long as alcohol remains legal, other such drugs should be as well.

As libertarians, we think if you wish to kill yourself with booze or drugs you should well be allowed and it is not the government's place to stop you.

It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.


So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

And car dealers. And bar tenders. And parents.

 

[Votto]

Does anyone know that alcohol kills more people than any other drug every year?

Alcohol Kills More Than Drugs | Morningside Recovery

So is this fact a walking advertisement that legalizing such drugs is detrimental to the population at large?

Do any libertarians want to tackle this?

Yes it is. As long as alcohol remains legal, other such drugs should be as well.

As libertarians, we think if you wish to kill yourself with booze or drugs you should well be allowed and it is not the government's place to stop you.

It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.


So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

Try googling the number of people who are killed because of guns verses drugs. Drugs far outweigh deaths due to guns.

Additionally, much of our gun violence can be traced to drug use.

And lastly, guns are not inherently addictive, causing you to seek behavior that will diminish your life span. In fact, they can prolong your life if you use them in self defense.

But you are on to something here. If gun violence because too much for society to handle, then the government would be forced to take them from you. That is the goal, which is the moral collapse of society.

 

[Pilot1]

Maybe I am a bit cynical, but the "War on Drugs" has been used by government to justify huge expenditures and create large bureaucracies like the DEA. How many agencies do we need to fight the war on drugs? FBI, DEA, DHS, BATF, State Police everywhere, local police everywhere, just to name a few.

How much money has been spent? Do we still have illegal drug use in the U.S. on a large scale? YES!

No arguments there.

If what I'm saying is correct, the only motive Progressives have is increasing a centralized government, without really addressing the drug problem.

Agreed. I would rather see a much smaller amount of money going to address the root cause of alcohol and drug abuse.

 

[Votto]

Well in Singapore if you are caught dealing drugs you are simply shot on the spot. Those who abuse drugs get three chances, and if they get 3 strikes then they are locked up for life.

Yeah. I get it. Fortunately, the US has rejected that kind of dystopian scenario.

People just need to be informed as to which direction they are being steered.

 

[Votto]

Maybe I am a bit cynical, but the "War on Drugs" has been used by government to justify huge expenditures and create large bureaucracies like the DEA. How many agencies do we need to fight the war on drugs? FBI, DEA, DHS, BATF, State Police everywhere, local police everywhere, just to name a few.

How much money has been spent? Do we still have illegal drug use in the U.S. on a large scale? YES!

No arguments there.

If what I'm saying is correct, the only motive Progressives have is increasing a centralized government, without really addressing the drug problem.

Agreed. I would rather see a much smaller amount of money going to address the root cause of alcohol and drug abuse.

Again, it's not about the money, it's about how the money is being used.

Just look at the US educational system. They spend the most of any country and come in like 48th in math and science.

Again, public education is more about government expansiveness than educating children.

 

[Pilot1]

Does anyone know that alcohol kills more people than any other drug every year?

Alcohol Kills More Than Drugs | Morningside Recovery

So is this fact a walking advertisement that legalizing such drugs is detrimental to the population at large?

Do any libertarians want to tackle this?

Yes it is. As long as alcohol remains legal, other such drugs should be as well.

As libertarians, we think if you wish to kill yourself with booze or drugs you should well be allowed and it is not the government's place to stop you.

It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.


So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.

Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.

 

[Votto]

Yes it is. As long as alcohol remains legal, other such drugs should be as well.

As libertarians, we think if you wish to kill yourself with booze or drugs you should well be allowed and it is not the government's place to stop you.

It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.


So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.

Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.

You are not understanding what I'm saying.

IF you wage war against guns, like Singapore does illicit drugs, you can substantially reduce it's use.

I recognize that most guns used illegally are obtained illegally, but waging war across the board would reduce their numbers.

 

[Pilot1]

It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.


So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.

Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.

You are not understanding what I'm saying.

IF you wage war against guns, like Singapore does illicit drugs, you can substantially reduce it's use.

I recognize that most guns used illegally are obtained illegally, but waging war across the board would reduce their numbers.

A war on guns is being waged. It hasn't worked. It can not work in the U.S. due to the large population, the sheer number of guns and the Second Amendment which is currently being circumvented illegally by government yet they are still failing to stop violent crime where PEOPLE use a gun.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes it is. As long as alcohol remains legal, other such drugs should be as well.

As libertarians, we think if you wish to kill yourself with booze or drugs you should well be allowed and it is not the government's place to stop you.

It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.


So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.

Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.

Not really, no. Same logic applies.

 

[Votto]

Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.

in terms of death tolls they are.

I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?

When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.

If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.

Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.

Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.

You are not understanding what I'm saying.

IF you wage war against guns, like Singapore does illicit drugs, you can substantially reduce it's use.

I recognize that most guns used illegally are obtained illegally, but waging war across the board would reduce their numbers.

A war on guns is being waged. It hasn't worked. It can not work in the U.S. due to the large population, the sheer number of guns and the Second Amendment which is currently being circumvented illegally by government yet they are still failing to stop violent crime where PEOPLE use a gun.

You are not still understanding.

IF you wage a war on guns like Singapore wages war on drugs then you could substantively reduce the number of gun deaths.

Then people would do like they do in Europe, turn to knives, bombs, cars, etc.

And then if things got bad enough, they would seek to take those from you as well.

Eventually you would be like an inmate in jail. You will not be allowed any "dangerous" objects and probably be subjected to repeated rape because you have no means to defend yourself.