Alcohol again
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:35:53 -0600 (00919218953, 4.1.19990216140404.00b4c220@pop.truman.edu)
--=====================_2223326==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:51 PM 2/16/99 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:
>At 09:24 AM 2/16/99 -0600, Ed Tyler wrote:
>
>>Ed
>>
>>I used to live directly across the border from two dry counties in
>>Arkansas. The Missouri bar and liquor store owners literally made millions
>>a year from the commerce that would otherwise have been kept in Ark.
Amazing.
>>
>
>TILL
>I shouldn't have commented on your blue-law posting, because I knew that it
>would incite an off-topic tirade. I am ignoring the other postings, but I
>wanted to send a personal comment to you. I admire your ability to think
>rationally, but look at what you have done here. If child pornography were
>illegal in two counties but across the border in Missouri it were
>permissible so that pornography dealers were able to make millions, would
>you consider this a good reason to make child pornography universally legal?
>The issue is whether the open sale of liquor is a socially good thing and
>not whether some are able to make money on it because of inconsistencies in
>the regulation of it.
>
Ed
Of course there is a difference between commerce and child pornography and the
sale of liquor. There is universal condemnation of the former and a general
acceptance of the latter. I understand that there are some people who can't
handle their liquor and who will drive under the influence or come home looped
and beat their wives and children. Such people are held accountable for their
actions by the law, under the principle that voluntary intoxication is no
defense; the fact that some people are alcoholics is no reason that the rest of
society ought to be denied access to liquor.
There are several reasons I'm against prohibition, none of them personal.
(For health reasons I can't drink much more than an occasional toast, so
prohibition wouldn't affect me one way or the other.) One is that it simply
doesn't work for any drug, and it has already proven itself a resounding
failure in America with respect to alcohol. My anecdote about the dry counties
merely reinforces my claim that prohibition is a universal failure.
But the main reason I oppose prohibition is that it is an oppressive and
intrusive extension of government authority into the individual's private
affairs. A government that can govern what I may drink can govern virtually
every aspect of my life. Or better put, a government that can govern what
someone else may drink can also govern virtually every aspect of my life. The
dry-county governments in Arkansas would jump at the opportunity to do just
that.
I certainly respect your boycott of the liquor industry, but I see no merit
whatsoever in your apparent preference for prohibition.
--=====================_2223326==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:51 PM 2/16/99 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:
>At 09:24 AM 2/16/99 -0600, Ed Tyler wrote:
>
>>Ed
>>
>>I used to live directly across the border from two dry counties
in
>>Arkansas. The Missouri bar and liquor store owners
literally made millions
>>a year from the commerce that would otherwise have been kept in
Ark. Amazing.
>>
>
>TILL
>I shouldn't have commented on your blue-law posting, because I knew
that it
>would incite an off-topic tirade. I am ignoring the other
postings, but I
>wanted to send a personal comment to you. I admire your ability
to think
>rationally, but look at what you have done here. If child
pornography were
>illegal in two counties but across the border in Missouri it
were
>permissible so that pornography dealers were able to make millions,
would
>you consider this a good reason to make child pornography universally
legal?
>The issue is whether the open sale of liquor is a socially good thing
and
>not whether some are able to make money on it because of
inconsistencies in
>the regulation of it.
>
Ed
Of course there is a difference between commerce and child pornography
and the sale of liquor. There is universal condemnation of the
former and a general acceptance of the latter. I understand that
there are some people who can't handle their liquor and who will drive
under the influence or come home looped and beat their wives and
children. Such people are held accountable for their actions by the
law, under the principle that voluntary intoxication is no defense; the
fact that some people are alcoholics is no reason that the rest of
society ought to be denied access to liquor.
There are several reasons I'm against prohibition, none of them
personal. (For health reasons I can't drink much more than an
occasional toast, so prohibition wouldn't affect me one way or the
other.) One is that it simply doesn't work for any drug, and it has
already proven itself a resounding failure in America with respect to
alcohol. My anecdote about the dry counties merely reinforces my
claim that prohibition is a universal failure.
But the main reason I oppose prohibition is that it is an
oppressive and intrusive extension of government authority into the
individual's private affairs. A government that can govern what I
may drink can govern virtually every aspect of my life. Or better
put, a government that can govern what someone else may drink can
also govern virtually every aspect of my life. The
dry-county governments in Arkansas would jump at the opportunity to do
just that.
I certainly respect your boycott of the liquor industry, but I see no
merit whatsoever in your apparent preference for prohibition.