Alcohol again

kanwal

kanwal@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in

Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:46:36 +0530

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE5B1B.3152B0E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Restrictions or ban on alcohal results into bootlegging,crime and all = associated activities.America had tried prohibition.India has been = trying restriction and prohibition in several states.The result is not = restriction in sale of liquor but drastic reduction in state revenue. By placing restrictions,the state dictates what to drink and when not to = drink. Alcohal has given immense pleasure to man kind.It has medicinal value = also.Excess of any thing is bad.This applies to alcohal also. kanwal -----Original Message----- From: Ed Tyler <etyler@truman.edu> To: errancy@infidels.org <errancy@infidels.org> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 2:49 AM Subject: Alcohol again =20 =20 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. > =20 Ed =20 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. =20 =20 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. =20 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. =20 I certainly respect your boycott of the liquor industry, but I see = no merit whatsoever in your apparent preference for prohibition.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE5B1B.3152B0E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

Restrictions or ban on alcohal = results into=20 bootlegging,crime and all associated activities.America had tried=20 prohibition.India has been trying restriction and prohibition in several = states.The result is not restriction in sale of liquor but drastic = reduction in=20 state revenue.

By placing = restrictions,the=20 state dictates what to drink and when not to drink.

Alcohal has given immense pleasure to man kind.It = has=20 medicinal value also.Excess of any thing is bad.This applies to alcohal=20 also.

kanwal

-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Ed Tyler <etyler@truman.edu>
To: = errancy@infidels.org <errancy@infidels.org>
D= ate:=20 Wednesday, February 17, 1999 2:49 AM
Subject: Alcohol=20 again

At 01:51 PM 2/16/99 -0800, Farrell Till=20 wrote:
>At 09:24 AM 2/16/99 -0600, Ed Tyler=20 wrote:
>
>>Ed
>>
>>I used to live = directly=20 across the border from two dry counties = in
>>Arkansas. The=20 Missouri bar and liquor store owners literally made = millions
>>a=20 year from the commerce that would otherwise have been kept in = Ark. =20 Amazing.
>>
>
>TILL
>I shouldn't have = commented=20 on your blue-law posting, because I knew that it
>would incite = an=20 off-topic tirade. I am ignoring the other postings, but=20 I
>wanted to send a personal comment to you. I admire = your=20 ability to think
>rationally, but look at what you have done=20 here. If child pornography were
>illegal in two counties = but=20 across the border in Missouri it were
>permissible so that = pornography=20 dealers were able to make millions, would
>you consider this a = good=20 reason to make child pornography universally legal?
>The issue = is=20 whether the open sale of liquor is a socially good thing = and
>not=20 whether some are able to make money on it because of inconsistencies = in
>the regulation of it.
>

Ed

Of course = there is=20 a difference between commerce and child pornography and the sale of=20 liquor. There is universal condemnation of the former and a = general=20 acceptance of the latter. I understand that there are some = people who=20 can't handle their liquor and who will drive under the influence or = come=20 home looped and beat their wives and children. Such people are = held=20 accountable for their actions by the law, under the principle that = voluntary=20 intoxication is no defense; the fact that some people are alcoholics = is no=20 reason that the rest of society ought to be denied access to = liquor. =20

There are several reasons I'm against prohibition, none of = them=20 personal. (For health reasons I can't drink much more = than an=20 occasional toast, so prohibition wouldn't affect me one way or the=20 other.) One is that it simply doesn't work for any drug, and = it has=20 already proven itself a resounding failure in America with respect = to=20 alcohol. My anecdote about the dry counties merely reinforces = my claim=20 that prohibition is a universal failure.

But the main = reason I=20 oppose prohibition is that it is an oppressive and intrusive = extension of=20 government authority into the individual's private affairs. A=20 government that can govern what I may drink can govern virtually = every=20 aspect of my life. Or better put, a government that can govern = what=20 someone else may drink can also govern virtually every aspect = of=20 my life. The dry-county governments in Arkansas would = jump at=20 the opportunity to do just that.

I certainly respect your = boycott of=20 the liquor industry, but I see no merit whatsoever in your apparent=20 preference for prohibition. ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE5B1B.3152B0E0--