Should the U.S. government bring back Prohibition?

[JAR]

Should the U.S. government bring back Prohibition?

My answer to that is "yes."

According to "I Love Paul Revere Whether Or Not He Rode" by Richard Shenkman, Prohibition achieved exactly what it was supposed to, which was to make it so there was less drinking of intoxicating drinks.

In my opinion, when Prohibition ended, the bad guys won.

[3-toed-sloth]

You can pry my martini from my cold dead hands

[JAR]

Originally posted by 3-toed-sloth
You can pry my martini from my cold dead hands
You know what happens when the doctors study alcohol's effects on humans? They find that drinking alcoholic beverages excessively is very bad for our health.

Besides, some people are actually stupid enough to drink while driving. I've known at least two people who ruined their lives with alcohol.

I recommend that you replace that martini with soda pop.

[fishbob]

What prohibition accomplished before was the establishment and enrichment of organized crime. The cost was high, measurable success was low, the unintended consequences were not desirable.

Also, soda pop is bad for you.

[JAR]

Originally posted by fishbob
What prohibition accomplished before was the establishment and enrichment of organized crime. The cost was high, measurable success was low, the unintended consequences were not desirable.
I don't understand why people need alcohol so badly. I almost never drink alcoholic beverages. Creme soda tastes a hell of a lot better. Humans can do without alcohol. People act like we'd be so deprived if we had prohibition, but we wouldn't. Alchoholic drinks taste bad. Even the best wines don't taste good.

After what one sees happen to the modern Native American Indians with alcohol, it amazes me that people could want to keep it legal.

[Zep]

Originally posted by JAR

I don't understand why people need alcohol so badly. I almost never drink alcoholic beverages. Creme soda tastes a hell of a lot better. Humans can do without alcohol. People act like we'd be so deprived if we had prohibition, but we wouldn't. Alchoholic drinks taste bad. Even the best wines don't taste good.

After what one sees happen to the modern Native American Indians with alcohol, it amazes me that people could want to keep it legal. Then that's your opinion on alcoholic beverages. Fine, then don't drink them yourself - that's all right by all the rest of us. But there are many millions of people who disagree with you, and think that some alcoholic beverages are the nectar of the gods. Personally, I do like a glass of excellent wine, not a whole bottle at a time, just a glass or two with a meal.

As regards Native Americans and alcohol abuse, can I point out that this is hardly unique to them, nor is alcohol abuse limited to aboriginal people. And neither is alcohol the only legal drug - tobacco is equally if not more damaging, yet it will probably be a cold day in hell when that is banned.

And anyway, most natives brewed their own alcoholic beverages long before European colonisation, and in the case of Central American people, smoked tobacco as well (guess where it came from to go to Europe). In fact, the earliest reports even reported the children as smokers.

Lastly, Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine, not creme soda pop. Kind of a point he was trying to make, do you think?

[renata]

Refresh my memory, JAR, aren't you also the poster who does not believe in premarital sex and thinks having more than one sex partner in a lifetime will lead to the fall of Western civilization?


Just because you don't understand the pleasures and benefits of a glass of wine, and because you cannot understand why people choose engage in sex outside of marriage, and with more than one person in a lifetime, does not mean those things are bad, and you should impose your narrow opinions on otthers. It just means that you don't understand why others beleive differently than you. Don't confuse the two.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Jar
I don't understand why people need alcohol so badly.

We don't "need" it any more than you need the TV in your living room or the computer you're using to write this. We just like it.

Originally posted by JAR
I almost never drink alcoholic beverages.

Which is your choice. I don't understand why you want to force this opinion on everybody else.

Originally posted by JAR
Creme soda tastes a hell of a lot better.

Your opinion. In my opinion cream soda tastes like crap.

Originally posted by JAR
Humans can do without alcohol.

They can also do without computers, TVs and a whole slew of other luxuries.

Originally posted by JAR
People act like we'd be so deprived if we had prohibition, but we wouldn't. Alchoholic drinks taste bad. Even the best wines don't taste good.

I really hope this has all been tounge in cheek.

[3-toed-sloth]

Originally posted by JAR

You know what happens when the doctors study alcohol's effects on humans? They find that drinking alcoholic beverages excessively is very bad for our health.

Besides, some people are actually stupid enough to drink while driving. I've known at least two people who ruined their lives with alcohol.

I recommend that you replace that martini with soda pop.


I am well aware of the effects of alcohol on humans, I take cabs after drinking too much. But I stand by my statement.

Besides without alcohol I would never dance and nothing is funnier than a dancing fat man in a hawaiian shirt

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I will have to find confirmation of this but I vaguely remember hearing that organized crime had connections that lobbied for prohibition as they saw it as a way to increase profit. Supply and demand.

AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

[Richard G]

You're free not to drink. I'm free to drink. Whats wrong with that? We don't need the goverment to wipe our ass for every little thing.

[bignickel]

You don't have a Planet X option so I can't vote.

End Prohibition? Ha!

Prohibition never friggin ended; the only thing that happened was that one particular narcotic was taken off the prohibited list.

This country has always been full of people who want to tell you what your brain chemistry should or shouldn't be; that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Fortunately, we figured out how to export our mob battles down to South America, so that our cities don't get shot up by machine guns.

Their cities do.

[PogoPedant]

Yes, yes, yes! Bring back prohibition. We'd have cool cats and hot jazz and long drinks and speakeasies. It's just not the same if the cops aren't looking for ya!

So prohibition all the way, if I get to be cool enough to know the passwords.

[JAR]

Originally posted by renata
Refresh my memory, JAR, aren't you also the poster who does not believe in premarital sex and thinks having more than one sex partner in a lifetime will lead to the fall of Western civilization?

Yes.

[JAR]

Originally posted by renata
Just because you don't understand the pleasures and benefits of a glass of wine, and because you cannot understand why people choose engage in sex outside of marriage, and with more than one person in a lifetime, does not mean those things are bad, and you should impose your narrow opinions on otthers. It just means that you don't understand why others beleive differently than you. Don't confuse the two.
Of course renata would be against prohibition. She comes from Mother Russia, where people can't go without vodka.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by JAR

I don't understand why people need alcohol so badly. I almost never drink alcoholic beverages. Creme soda tastes a hell of a lot better
All I can say is the beer must be pretty lousy where you live......

Never mind, I suspect you will change your mind when you grow up and leave home.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR

I don't understand why people need alcohol so badly.

I don't need it, I just like to dring a lot of it everyday.

[ssibal]

We just need harsher penalties for those who drive while intoxicated.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR

Of course renata would be against prohibition. She comes from Mother Russia, where people can't go without vodka.

Not only that, lots of communists used to live there.

[JAR]

Zep, The Fool, and a unique person all like alcohol and all live in Australia.

I'm beginning to suspect that Australians really like alcohol.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by JAR
Zep, The Fool, and a unique person all like alcohol and all live in Australia.

I'm beginning to suspect that Australians really like alcohol.
Us??????? :roll: I assure you, I never drink in between drinks.

When I'm not drinking I am invariably smoking something....Tobacco, Pot,Tea leaves if I'm desperate...Hey, I was a Teen in the 60's, its not my fault. Just ask Tricky.......

[a_unique_person]

I exercise extreme self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast.

WC Fields.

[Zep]

<h1>NEWS FLASH!!! JAR SAYS "AUSSIES LIKE ALCOHOL"!!!</h1>

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

What does the term "World Champions" mean to you, JAR?

[a_unique_person]

Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch...

The cost of living has gone up another dollar a quart.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house unless they have a well-stocked bar

Twas a woman who drove me to drink. I never had the courtesy to thank her.

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I exercise extreme self control. I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast---WC Fields.
That reminds me of another WC Fields bit.

In "The Bank Dick", WC Fields says to a bartender who is played by the actor who played Shemp in the Three Stooges:

W.C. Fields: Did I spend a twenty dollar bill here the other day?
Bartender: Yep.
W.C. Fields: Boy is that a load off my mind. I thought I'd lost it.

[Zep]

Forget where I found this, but anyway, it deserves repeating. Incidentally, Australian standard "full-strength" beer is roughly 4%, compared to most commercial American beers at 3.2% or so (which we call "light beer"!).American readers who may not be aware of David Boon, aka the "keg on legs", all you need to know is that apart from being a short fat bloke with a big moustache, he was an extremely successful member of the Australian Cricket Team, who also managed to break the world record for drinking cans of beer on an Airplane.

It was another time, of course, when alcohol consumption was not looked upon as inherently evil, but Boonie managed to put away 52 cans of full-strength beer on a Sydney-London flight. This record will, most likely, never be broken, as I'm pretty sure it's illegal to serve you that many tinnies nowadays. And Boonie also OWNED the close-in area behind square-leg...

http://www.view.com.au/boon/cover.jpg

[JAR]

Originally posted by Zep
As regards Native Americans and alcohol abuse, can I point out that this is hardly unique to them, nor is alcohol abuse limited to aboriginal people.
You missed the whole point of my comment on the Native American Indian alcohol problem. I wasn't arguing that it is unique to them. My comment wasn't an attempt to bash on Native American Indians.

I was simply implying that if they are victims of alcohol, other peoples might be the next ones.

[renata]

Originally posted by JAR

Of course renata would be against prohibition. She comes from Mother Russia, where people can't go without vodka.

Did you know USSR had Prohibition in the 1980's? Yes, those damn commies did. Care to guess what happened?

But I like the connection AUP drew

Russia-vodka-alcohol
Russia-communist

If you like a glass of wine, you are a commie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

I will have a glass in your honor tonight, JAR
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/ernaehrung/food-smiley-006.gif

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zep
Forget where I found this, but anyway, it deserves repeating. Incidentally, Australian standard "full-strength" beer is roughly 4%, compared to most commercial American beers at 3.2% or so (which we call "light beer"!).

I think their would be a riot if it was dropped to 4%. It is closer to 5%.

[Nasarius]

No no no, we have to drink more alcohol to beat the commies.

Ripper: Mandrake?
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
Mandrake: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

[KelvinG]

I'm glad that you don't drink JAR. If that is a choice you are happy with, then more power to you.
But, that doesn't mean other people should be deprived of such pleasures. I enjoy alcohol and I'm very responsible with it.
Why should the government tell me I can't drink.
They shouldn't. And they won't. Prohibition will never return. In fact, in some more civilized countries, other drugs, such as pot, are being more liberally accepted.
But hey, I praise you for making a choice not to drink. I admire strong convictions.

[JAR]

Originally posted by renata
Did you know USSR had Prohibition in the 1980's? Yes, those damn commies did. Care to guess what happened?

I'd love to know what happened because from what I've heard of the horrible alcoholism problem among Russian men, Russia could use a prohibition.

[LFTKBS]

Hey, JAR, you and Lord Kenneth can get together and have a nice conversation about how stoic and ascetic you both are. Ken's not getting laid because it's evil, you don't drink because it's evil . . . why, you two can play Magic: the Gathering, eat PB & J, and applaud your inestimable nobility.

Sounds like fun; count me in.

[renata]

Originally posted by JAR

I'd love to know what happened because from what I've heard of the horrible alcoholism problem among Russian men, Russia could use a prohibition.

Why don't you guess what happened, given your advocacy of prohibition as a solution for alcoholism. I will fill you in on how close you are to what actually occurred.


Edited to add- please don't research what happened. Use your powers of reason to figure what should have happened. Alcoholism is bad, prohibition is good, what were the utterly predictable results of prohibition in USSR? I am then going to tell you how right or wrong you were, as I was there at the time they implemented that very wise policy.

[fishbob]

from what I've heard of the horrible alcoholism problem among Russian men, Russia could use a prohibition. Certain Russians could use some help dealing with alcoholism. Prohibition does not work.

Many of the bush communities in Alaska allow no alcohol sales, others allow no alcohol at all. These are places with 300 to 500 people where everybody knows everybody else. Public drinking decreased, but alcoholism is still a big problem. Prohibition does not work.

By the way, have I mentioned that prohibition does not work?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by JAR

I don't understand why people need alcohol so badly. I almost never drink alcoholic beverages.

Thats because you are fourteen years old.

[Zep]

Originally posted by JAR

You missed the whole point of my comment on the Native American Indian alcohol problem. I wasn't arguing that it is unique to them. My comment wasn't an attempt to bash on Native American Indians.

I was simply implying that if they are victims of alcohol, other peoples might be the next ones. You don't seem to have got MY point, so here goes again.

1. Native Americans had alcohol long before Europeans arrived.

2. Presumably they also had "alcohol problems" due to overconsumption in part of their ancient communities as a result.

3. They also imbibed what are now semi-legal and illegal drugs, notably tobacco.

4. Therefore the "natives drinking alcohol" you refer to are NOT new to them. Maybe they had it under control before Columbus, I don't know.

5. Perhaps the current "native problems" can be attributed to other more obvious and current issues: genocide, dispossession, relocation, segregation, denigration, etc, etc.

6. Prohibition would NOT seem to be an answer to these issues. And even if it were, it would be for the native communities to deal with (and they do), not the US federal government.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by JAR;
You know what happens when the doctors study alcohol's effects on humans? They find that drinking alcoholic beverages excessively is very bad for our health.

Ingesting or imbibing anything in excess is bad for you, full stop.

American Indians, like some other Asiatic peoples, lack an efficient alcohol dehydrogenase gene. This makes them more susceptible to bad reactions to alcohol intake. Not sure if this is connected to alcoholism in Native Americans, though.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by renata


Did you know USSR had Prohibition in the 1980's? Yes, those damn commies did. Care to guess what happened?

But I like the connection AUP drew

Russia-vodka-alcohol
Russia-communist

If you like a glass of wine, you are a commie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

I will have a glass in your honor tonight, JAR
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/ernaehrung/food-smiley-006.gif

This is true. I'm a commie (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29086#post1870147429), and I love a glass of wine or two (I've got one of them handy wine glasses which holds a full bottle [75cl]).

Btw–US beer is only 3% proof? What's the point of it then?

[geni]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Thats because you are fourteen years old.

Errr Jon have you been to your local one stop laterly ( or you local park)?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by geni


Errr Jon have you been to your local one stop laterly ( or you local park)?

Or bus stop or street corner. Or casualty department, come to think of it.

[JAR]

Originally posted by fishbob
[snip]
Prohibition does not work.
[snip]
Prohibition does not work.

By the way, have I mentioned that prohibition does not work?
It worked in the U.S. The only thing that didn't work about it was that the U.S. government discontinued it.

[JAR]

Originally posted by renata
Why don't you guess what happened, given your advocacy of prohibition as a solution for alcoholism. I will fill you in on how close you are to what actually occurred.


Edited to add- please don't research what happened. Use your powers of reason to figure what should have happened. Alcoholism is bad, prohibition is good, what were the utterly predictable results of prohibition in USSR? I am then going to tell you how right or wrong you were, as I was there at the time they implemented that very wise policy.
I'll guess. If it was anything like the prohibition in the U.S., there was less drinking of intoxicating drinks which is exactly what it's supposed to cause.

[Tony]

To play devil's advocate, why shouldnt alcohol be illegal?

It ruins lives, it is responsible for deaths, there is not a legitimate or beneficial reason to drink, it does society more harm than good, it is bad for you, and it isnt fundamental to democracy. Ive heard many of the same people here defending the right to drink trod out these same reasons to restrict other freedoms. So why not apply this to alcohol?

[renata]

Originally posted by JAR

I'll guess. If it was anything like the prohibition in the U.S., there was less drinking of intoxicating drinks which is exactly what it's supposed to cause.

That is the best you can do? You are the one that is arguing alcohol is bad, Prohibition is good, Russia could use a Prohibition. Come on, try again, and this time tell me what good consequences, or, hell, any consequences you would expect from Prohibition in USSR in the 1980's following your original argument. Do not go with the obvious- there would be less alcohol. Try again-what do you think happened there as a result of state imposed Prohibition, on a large scale? And once, again, try and predict it without research, based only on your own opinions, on what you are trying to convince us of here- the bad effects of alcohol, the benefits of Prohibition.

[JAR]

Originally posted by renata
That is the best you can do? You are the one that is arguing alcohol is bad, Prohibition is good, Russia could use a Prohibition. Come on, try again, and this time tell me what good consequences, or, hell, any consequences you would expect from Prohibition in USSR in the 1980's following your original argument. Do not go with the obvious- there would be less alcohol. Try again-what do you think happened there as a result of state imposed Prohibition, on a large scale? And once, again, try and predict it without research, based only on your own opinions, on what you are trying to convince us of here- the bad effects of alcohol, the benefits of Prohibition.
During the Russian prohibition, there was probably people making and selling alcohol illegally.

[renata]

Originally posted by JAR

During the Russian prohibition, there was probably people making and selling alcohol illegally.

Sheesh....

You are the one advocating for Prohibition.
Please tell me what you think were the good consequences, or any consequences or Prohibition in Russia? You said you are a college student! Come one, give me 5 potential large scale consequences of Prohibition in USSR in 1980s. Remember you are the one advocating it, and remember we are living in the real world, with alcoholics, criminals, etc, not in a make believe happy world where people march to orders as soon as they are issued.

[AmateurScientist]

Fishbob is absolutely correct.

Not only was prohibition a dismal and monumental failure, it was the proximate cause of the rise and influence of extremely violent gangs in many U.S. cities. The increase in other crimes due to the activities of the gangs further exacerbated the problems of bootlegging and the turf wars and revenge killings.

The rise of such gangs also paved the way for the notorious robbery and murder sprees by persons like Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, and Baby Face Nelson.

I would have to rank prohibition as this country's legislatures' single biggest and most far reaching mistake. It had more unintended consequences than any other bit of legislation, in my opinion. Furthermore, it absolutely failed to accomplish or reasonably address the problem it purported to correct.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the failure of and unintended consequences spawned by prohibition, it is that a government cannot stop its population from engaging in a what the population regards as a victimless, private activity which it thoroughly enjoys.

Of course, our country didn't learn any lessons from prohibition. Just as prohibition of alcohol was being repealed, our country began criminalizing the possession, sale, and distribution of other drugs, most notably marijuana at the time. Naturally, as marijuana became demonized, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs followed.

Today, just as during the prohibition of alcohol period, we have widespread use and abuse of illicit drugs and as an added bonus we have gangs and dealers and networks which exist solely to feed the enormous black market for the contraband. With that underground comes untold violence, murder, theft, robbery, and other crimes which wouldn't be committed if the blasted drugs were not illegal.

Thus, our nation has learned nothing from prohibition and its failure as policy and law.

If even a fraction of the people who devote a lot of time and attention to denouncing the U.S. fascination with guns would divert their energies into denouncing the criminalization of drugs, then they would be serving the interests of reducing violent and other crime far better.

In short, without a black market in drugs, there would be far fewer gun crimes in the U.S. The drug trade and drug deals are the primary reason the U.S. has such a high incidence of gun murders and other gun crimes. Legalize drugs--all of them--and overnight the illicit trade would disappear and overnight gun violence would diminish tremendously.

AS

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Damned well spoken.

[MoeFaux]

JAR, sometimes you just have your information wrong.
Prohibition was a failure. Organized crime prevailed. If anything, MORE people drank. Outlawing something doesn't make it go away, it just means that people will find ways around it to get what they want.

I don't drink. But I sure as hell am glad that you and I have the right to.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by JAR

You know what happens when the doctors study alcohol's effects on humans? They find that drinking alcoholic beverages excessively is very bad for our health.

Drinking alcohol moderately, however, is beneficial (http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/comparison061600.html) for one's health. (one link of many studies and reports- haven't checked this one out fully for myself, but there are plenty of other studies which support this)

So basically you are advocating the prohibition of something which, when used properly, can aid in preventing heart disease.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony
To play devil's advocate, why shouldnt alcohol be illegal?

It ruins lives, it is responsible for deaths, there is not a legitimate or beneficial reason to drink, it does society more harm than good, it is bad for you, and it isnt fundamental to democracy. Ive heard many of the same people here defending the right to drink trod out these same reasons to restrict other freedoms. So why not apply this to alcohol?

See my post above.

[Zep]

Originally posted by JAR

It worked in the U.S. The only thing that didn't work about it was that the U.S. government discontinued it. As I understand it from my limited contact with American history, Prohibition in the USA did NOTHING to prevent the consumption of alcohol (not to mention the other side-effects mentioned previously). If anything, alcohol consumption went up simply because it WAS banned. It just all went underground, or people brewed their own at home (moonshiners), or went to Mexico or Canada... But mostly it was simply ignored, just like "illegal" cannabis smoking is today. Do you know what a "speakeasy" was and why they came into existence? I understand there were even passenger liners that went for short day cruises outside the US ocean border so that the Prohibition laws no longer applied, and there they could legally serve booze to their thousands of passengers.

My impression, and the historians here may well correct me, is that Prohibition was repealed purely on economic terms. Put simply, the government was not getting the taxes on the booze it used to get, even though it was plainly clear everyone was still selling, buying and drinking! "Fighting the evil drink" had nothing to do with it after that...

[Upchurch]

Let's take a modern analogy to Prohibition: the War on Drugs

Drugs are now just as illegal now as alcohol was then, right? Has drug use gone up or down since the War in Drugs began in the 80's? Are there greater or fewer kinds of drugs? Are there more or fewer drug dealers around? Are more or less kids now taking drugs?

hmm.... something to consider.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Zep

My impression, and the historians here may well correct me, is that Prohibition was repealed purely on economic terms. Put simply, the government was not getting the taxes on the booze it used to get, even though it was plainly clear everyone was still selling, buying and drinking! "Fighting the evil drink" had nothing to do with it after that...

That, and the fact that the governement of that time realized that by making alcohol illegal, all they had done was boost the profits of organized crime by giving them a popular commodity that only they could provide. This caused organized crime rackets to grow exponentially. If only our current government would make the same realization about the "War on Drugs".

[Furious]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Let's take a modern analogy to Prohibition: the War on Drugs

Drugs are now just as illegal now as alcohol was then, right? Has drug use gone up or down since the War in Drugs began in the 80's? Are there greater or fewer kinds of drugs? Are there more or fewer drug dealers around? Are more or less kids now taking drugs?

hmm.... something to consider.

Actually, I'll be willing to bet drug use was down. Someone will have to dig up the statistics on that.

However, I'll be willing to bet it was because of more drug education and a better economy, since your points about number of available drugs and ease of buying seem pretty valid to me.

[Quasi]

I disagree. When prohibition was enacted, not only were speak easy's very popular, many "medications" arose which were nothing more than hard liquor with a medical sounding name. Such "tonics" are returning today due to popularity for antiquated forms of snake oil aka alternative medicine. And guess what else- in islamic sountries, even fundamentalist ones with prohibition, guess what is the most popular remedy? Hard liquor with a medical sounding label of course! In light of this, I feel that prohibition is a total waste of government money, and gives millions to organized crime. I also beleive we should end prohibition of pot, (but encourage pot baked goods as it is healthier.)

[DangerousBeliefs]

Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html)

Mark Thornton is the O. P. Alford III Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University.



In fact, I'd go so far as to say we should learn this lesson with Marijuana - legalize it and tax it!


By the way, I come from a generational family of alcoholics and even I think prohibition is a very stupid idea... but don't believe me... believe the lessons of history.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


That, and the fact that the governement of that time realized that by making alcohol illegal, all they had done was boost the profits of organized crime by giving them a popular commodity that only they could provide. This caused organized crime rackets to grow exponentially. If only our current government would make the same realization about the "War on Drugs".

I think this is mainly due to the stigma of the currently illegal drugs. During prohibition, alcoholism wasn't considered a disease like we think of it today. Prohibition was more of a God doesn't want you to drink movement and drinking was a considered a moral problem, not an issue of addiction. There was little thought about alcohol addiction when the amendments were passed and repealed.

The current justification (and I think it is weak) is that the harder drugs like cocaine, heroin, and other narcotics are highly addictive and difficult to use in moderation over a long period of time, so they need to be made illegal to protect people from themselves. Smoking is nearly as addictive of course, but it takes extreme amounts to die from one sitting.

Marijuana, while not really that bad by itself, is seen as a gateway drug to the other harder stuff. In my opinion, it just got unfairly lumped in with the hard drugs when lawmakers were on an anti-drug crusade. Inertia has basically kept it illegal since.

So, while its obvious criminal organizations are getting mighty rich off of selling drugs, the war is still "worth it" because the currently illegal drugs are especially heinous. Not my thinking mind you, it's the people who are worried that their kid is gonna become a cokehead.

When our culture finally starts treating addiction like a health problem and not a criminal problem there will be progress on ending the War on Drugs, and I think we're slowly headed in that direction with some states starting to soften marijuana laws.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by renata
Refresh my memory, JAR, aren't you also the poster who does not believe in premarital sex and thinks having more than one sex partner in a lifetime will lead to the fall of Western civilization?


What about those of us who only believe in sex every 7 years, during Pon'Far?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html)

Mark Thornton is the O. P. Alford III Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University.



In fact, I'd go so far as to say we should learn this lesson with Marijuana - legalize it and tax it!



Excellent post, DB. Thornton's analysis is spot on. The War on Drugs is a series of economic causes and effects, not a moral issue.

AS

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony
To play devil's advocate, why shouldnt alcohol be illegal?

It ruins lives, it is responsible for deaths, there is not a legitimate or beneficial reason to drink, it does society more harm than good, it is bad for you, and it isnt fundamental to democracy. Ive heard many of the same people here defending the right to drink trod out these same reasons to restrict other freedoms. So why not apply this to alcohol?
planet earth to Tony:

You compulsively misrepresent anyones position advocating control of anything as advocating complete banning. If you could be more specific about who these "many of the same people" are and also tell us what you think they are saying I'm sure they would be happy and patient enough to explain the obvious to you yet again.

[renata]

Hmmm...it looks JAR is unable to defend his own position, as to why prohibition should have been a stunning success in USSR. His only insight was that there would be less drinking of alcoholic beverages. He has been online since his last post here, and he even posted some nonsense about how white Americans should remain in America in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29733) and not visit Greece.

Just reinforces my belief he is either an someone with a stunningly narrow view of the world or a troll.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by renata

Just reinforces my belief he is either an someone with a stunningly narrow view of the world or a troll.

You left out "just plain not very bright".

[JAR]

Originally posted by renata
He has been online since his last post here, and he even posted some nonsense about how white Americans should remain in America in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29733) and not visit Greece.

Just reinforces my belief he is either an someone with a stunningly narrow view of the world or a troll.
I think that whites in America need to realize their whiteness. They need to gain acceptance of their existence by pointing out their whiteness. We need to show the non-whites that were going to think of ourselves as white regardless of how much they suppress our belief in our whiteness.

Of course renata, you wouldn't know what that's like because you're Russian. Imagine being a person who is told not to think of herself as white because white is a race and race doesn't exist(so many people say, myself not included), but then these same people who say this don't fail to point out racism among whites and to talk about "stupid white people". I thought they just said the white race doesn't exist.

People like myself have lost all identifiable cultural and linguistic links with Europe, so we are left with one thing to call ourselves, and that is "white people". When you take away our ability to call ourselves "white people", we become outcasts, and when we are not united, we fall.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR

I think that whites in America need to realize their whiteness. They need to gain acceptance of their existence by pointing out their whiteness. We need to show the non-whites that were going to think of ourselves as white regardless of how much they suppress our belief in our whiteness.
This might help. (http://www.persil.com/time_in/products/performance/)

Of course renata, you wouldn't know what that's like because you're Russian. Imagine being a person who is told not to think of herself as white because white is a race and race doesn't exist(so many people say, myself not included), but then these same people who say this don't fail to point out racism among whites and to talk about "stupid white people". I thought they just said the white race doesn't exist.
Race based on skin colour differentiation doesn't exist; however the cultural effects of applying that typology to people are real. Having to think of oneself in terms of skin colour is a cultural product, arising from a society in which skin colour has a certain value, and from being on the receiving end of a cultural moré which contrasts dominant values with minority values–in this case, white vs. not-white. But because "being" white is dominant, it's unnoticed; it's normal. But being "not-white" does stand out, because it's "abnormal". If the majority population in the US was purple, for instance, you'd quickly become aware of your "whiteness".
People like myself have lost all identifiable cultural and linguistic links with Europe,
Hold on, you were claiming "Englishness" in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28701#post1870137055). And doesn't mourning your lack of "europeanness" kind of contradict with berating renata about her "Russianness"?
so we are left with one thing to call ourselves, and that is "white people". When you take away our ability to call ourselves "white people", we become outcasts, and when we are not united, we fall.
How exactly does the majority population become "outcasts"? And aren't you American first?

[AmateurScientist]

How the hell did this turn into a discussion of race and ethnicity?

I thought we were discussing prohibition.

AS

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
How the hell did this turn into a discussion of race and ethnicity?

I thought we were discussing prohibition.

AS
The divergence probably started when JAR mentioned prohibition in the USSR. My bad for not having more self-control when I read JAR's views on ethnicity. But don't mind us, you carry on there. I've nothing much to add on prohibition which hasn't been said already.

[renata]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
How the hell did this turn into a discussion of race and ethnicity?

I thought we were discussing prohibition.

AS

Little JAR is trolling. He has rashly proclaimed prohibition would be good, and that USSR could use it, but when challenged to name the consequences of it, he can't. He is now trying his best to hijack his own thread to hide that sad fact.


That is particularly pathetic, given many people wrote excellent discourses on prohibition in USA, and, although USSR had a different course, there were of course certain similarities. I was even going to tell you not to help himl! :):)

OK, I give up on him. Would others be interested to know what happened in USSR? An utterly predictable result, but with a Soviet Union twist :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by renata
Would others be interested to know what happened in USSR? An utterly predictable result, but with a Soviet Union twist :)

Yes please! Here in the UK, we never had alcohol prohibition (well, not in the last coupla centuries) but we did get seemingly bizarre licensing laws to regulate drinking behaviour. Which is my typically verbose way of trying to say, I'm interested! :D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


What about those of us who only believe in sex every 7 years, during Pon'Far?
That was specifically inserted into Star Trek lore so that the people who think it is cool to dress up like a Vulcan and go to Trekkie conventions can justify their pitiful sex lives.... :p

[Wolverine]

When margaritas are outlawed, only outlaws will have margaritas...

[renata]

By overwhelming demand...;)

All statistics marked with* comes from the book Premature Death in the New Independent States , National Academy Press. Don't ask me why I have it :).
All other experience is personal, as someone who lived there at the time. Hence, it is possible my recollection is incomplete. Please take it as such :)

History
Of course Russia has a problem with alcoholism. There are many reasons for it, and I am not going into it. It is cold, depressing, there are no jobs, and no hope. Reason enough?

USSR always condemned alcoholism, but it was a good revenue source. Remember that little fact….
There has never been a concerted effort to educate people about alcoholism, or drinking. In a true absolutist fashion, people had to implement change from the top.

One of many problems is that the drink of choice there vodka, which gets people drunk faster, and has more serious social and physiological side effects, including fatal alcohol poisoning. Remember that quality of alcohol in USSR would be quite poor. Furthermore, Russians have “zapoy” or binges. They get paid, and they get drunk for a few days. That also contributes to deaths and violence. Interestingly, the anti alcohol campaign exacerbated the vodka problem in Russia. (See below)



Anti Alcohol Campaign methods

In Summer 1985 Gorbachev came out with a massive anti alcohol campaign. There were many elements to it. There would be huge punishments for anyone making wine or samogon (moonshine) at home. The alcohol would be rationed, I think to a bottle per month. (Technically, not 100% prohibition like in US). Restaurants would have to serve one glass of wine per meal. The prices for the alcohol were raised dramatically. If a worker got ill due to an alcohol related accident, he was not allowed sick leave. The state drastically reduced alcohol production and ordered dismantling of wineries, vodka plants, and breweries. Stores selling alcohol closed. Vineyards that could not be converted into juice making grape producing plants would be ploughed over. Sales would be reduced to limited days, resulting in mile long lines. State required registration and compulsory treatment of alcoholics. And yet- no education about effects of alcohol.

The campaign was rescinded in 1988.




Predictable consequences

Well, first we got huge lines for alcohol. Then all sugar disappeared from stores (to make moonshine). Berries, potatoes, beets and other produce disappeared as well for the same purpose. The country had to go into coupon rationing system then, and some credit disappearance of produce and sugar as one of the driving factors. Immediately some varieties of glue (alcohol based) glass cleaners, perfumes, after shaves, colognes, rubbing alcohol and anything that could possibly contain alcohol disappeared from stores. People were breaking into school labs (my school lab was broken into) and stealing anything that looked like alcohol. Methanol, ethanol. Everything. Doctors reported being bribed and threatened for alcohol.

Not surprisingly, immediately after that, there was a huge wave of poisonings, as alcoholics drank what they could get their hands on, and bad moonshine. But- and here we have the wonders of Soviet statistics, those deaths actually benefited them in declaring success in campaign. More on that later.

Black market, organized crime, all of that I do not even have to go into, we had a similar type as here. Not gangs, not shootouts, but certainly Russian mob enjoyed this period very much and made huge profits. Some people credit this period with strengthening the mob and putting it in a better position to take a stranglehold on Russia after USSR collapsed in 1989.

In addition, there were also adverse economic consequences for USSR as a whole, more on that later.

Campaign’s effect on percentage of vodka as total alcohol consumed in Russia *
1970 58
1975 56
1980 57
1984 53
1985 53
1989 60
1990 65
1991 69
1992 74
1993 81
1994 81

One of the reasons for this (the anti alcohol campaign was 85-88) was that authorities ordered dismantling of wineries, breweries, and vodka plants as part of the campaign. For whatever reasons, the wineries and breweries were the first to go, and after the campaign was reversed, the rebuilding of vodka plants was first. Also, as vineyards and hops plants were destroyed, it is taking for the wine and beer production to recover.

So one of the unintended consequences of the campaign was increase of drinking of vodka, a drink more dangerous than wine and beer. There are of course other reasons for it, but the crippling of wine and beer production is one of them.



Sad consequences.

As these things go, The Soviet Union had to add its special brand of idiocy to the anti alcohol campaign. Several regions in it had a long history of wine making: Moldova, Crimea and Georgia. Although the wine was not well known on the international stage, the history of winemaking in those places goes back hundreds of years, for generations. During Soviet collectivization many vineyards were of course stripped from family ownership, but some of the more prized ones were kept standing, producing rare and prizewinning wine. As people who know wine know, sometimes a particular wine can only be made from a grape that grows on a particular hill- something about the grape, or the soil composition does not allow it to be transplanted well.

During the campaign, regional party secretaries tried to outdo each other to be in favor of central leadership. Vineyards suffered particularly. What could not be judged as suitable for grape juice production was torn down and fields were plowed over. 40% of fields in Moldova. Number in Georgia and Crimea I do not know, but the overall estimate is about 30% of vineyards in USSR as a whole were plowed over. Crimea was the center of a huge scandal. It was a home of some of the most rare and precious vineyards, producing extremely rare and valuable wine. The people who were in charge of them attempted to save them, as they are irreplaceable, and said that nobody gets drunk on very expensive gourmet wine, go after vodka instead! They were all rooted out, with no samples allowed to be saved. This led to several suicides which later came to light, and were a symbol of stupidity and overzealousness of the campaign, and destruction of national treasures. As I understand it, many of those vineyards have never recovered. Imagine something like this happening in France, Italy or Spain. Those people were just attached to their wine, their craft, their vineyards. This, as much as anything was a huge disgrace for the country, and although the campaign was rescinded for other reasons, which this came to light, the events in Crimea began national outrage at idiocy of the system.


Claimed benefits?

At the time, Russians were claiming huge successes in their campaign. In particular they were saying there was a decrease in alcohol caused deaths during the anti alcohol campaign years.

For one thing, statistic in Russia is a very slippery eel, and were frequently doctored to get beneficial results. It was done on a local and high level. People were held responsible for results in their regions, so there were heavy incentives to record certain deaths as having nothing to do with alcohol.

Let’s take the previously mentioned wave of poisonings. People who died were obviously hardened alcoholics. But, when they died, their causes of death was not due to alcoholism, it was something like accidental poisoning. However, they would likely have succumbed to alcoholism sooner or later- and, therefore, their death from drinking glue or window cleaner or some solvent from a lab, would actually work in favor of statisticians.

Furthermore, Russians claimed that there was a decrease in deaths due to alcohol related illnesses in 85, 86. However, those illnesses take years to develop- cirrhosis of the liver is just one example. How is it possible that the decline in this and similar illnesses would show up immediately?

Finally, since the punishment for alcoholism, for making moonshine was severe, and people who got into accidents while drunk were not entitled to leave, many people who got into accidents would wait until alcohol was out of their system before they got medical help, or bribe medical staff, so artificial decline is also due to the drinkers themselves.

Latest estimates are that although causal drinkers probably did stop drinking, alcoholics did not, and death rates on average were not affected.


Why was campaign rescinded?

Russia was claiming success due to immediate impact in lower alcohol related deaths, but campaign was rescinded in 1988. Why? Adverse results for economy.

As the production and sales of alcohol was cut drastically, it affected economy. Alcohol sales composed 10 to 12%* of consumption component of national income, and it the resulting loss of revenue, along with the scandals and unpopularity of the campaign caused the government to reverse course and once again increase the production of alcohol.



Conclusion

There is no question that alcoholism is a great problem in Russia. However, the anti alcohol campaign was conducted in a very unrealistic way, and caused more damage than benefits, on many levels. Once again, in Russia political zealousness, and party ideology triumphed over science, education and opinions of people who urged methods of teaching moderation.

[Melissa Johnson]

I am soooo happy it's happy hour! (well, it's a little early!) And I'm glad the poll shows such a high 'no' count.

Pass the martinis, please. The less prohibitions we have the better.

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Race based on skin colour differentiation doesn't exist;
Wrong. Skin color is influenced by genes. And who said we were just basing race on skin color? There is more than one feature that comprises what we call characteristically black and they are generally inherited genetically. Don't try to tell me race is not due to genetics. I've had this argument before and I'm tired of looking up the definition of race in my dictionary and then typing it into a reply on the forum.

[renata]

Originally posted by JAR

Wrong. Skin color is influenced by genes. And who said we were just basing race on skin color? There is more than one feature that comprises what we call characteristically black and they are generally inherited genetically. Don't try to tell me race is not due to genetics. I've had this argument before and I'm tired of looking up the definition of race in my dictionary and then typing it into a reply on the forum.

How about this thread does not hijacked?

We are having an interesting discussion on prohbition.

I am actually interested in hearing how alcohol laws are enforced in other countries, and how different experiments have failed, somewhat similarly here and elsewhere.

Want to discuss your ideas about race- start another thread.

[epepke]

Some day I'd love to read a history book about why prohibition was repealed, but I haven't found one yet.

It's perfectly obvious how prohibition got started, but why was it repealed? I've heard a number of explanations.

Taxes. This is probably the most cogent reason. In a time of depression, it is possible that legislators recognized the value of tax revenue on sales of alcohol. Tax on alcohol was a big part of American history, after all. Whisky rebellion, anyone? But still, why do legislators, in the current depression, not consider taxes on marijuana?

Organized Crime But since when have legislators considered organized crime anything other than a good thing? The Kennedys had a bootlegging fortune. Even now, I'm sure, organized crime provides a substantial amount of "campaign contribution," because they have the money.

Increased Crime in General Yes, this happened, but what of it? More crime means more opportunities for pork-barrel politics.

Prohibition Failed After an initial drop in alcohol consumption, it went right back up. Furthermore, there were significant numbers of people who got desperate and drank methanol. But again, since when have legislators cared about the failure of their programs?

Prohibition Cause Corruption Yes, but again, to the typical legislator, corruption is a good thing, because it means more money. Was there, perhaps, a government agency that became especially corrupt, resulting in envy amongst legislators who considered it competitive to their own corruption?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by JAR
Should the U.S. government bring back Prohibition?

My answer to that is "yes."

According to "I Love Paul Revere Whether Or Not He Rode" by Richard Shenkman, Prohibition achieved exactly what it was supposed to, which was to make it so there was less drinking of intoxicating drinks.

In my opinion, when Prohibition ended, the bad guys won.

Brilliant idea!!! Maybe it will work as well as it did before!! Maybe it will work as well as drug prohibition works now!!! For your info, the bad guys lost. Prohibition was the best thing that ever happened to bad guys. Unless you consider people who enjoy drinking a beer on a hot day or a nice glass of wine with their pasta bad guys. I can't even address this. You are an idiot. You apparently accept the premise as so many other sheep do that you don't even own and have dominion over you own body - that it is appropriate other people to decide for you what you may or may not ingest into your own body or that it is appropriate for you to decide that same thing for other people. Look you don't like being able to decide how to live your own life, go live someplace where you don't get to do that.

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
And aren't you American first?
Hell no! I'm not American first. Americanism is a love of racial and ethnic diversity. I hate racial and ethnic diversity. I think of myself as white. That's what the non-white kids called me in middle school and that's what I am.

Non-white people rejoice at being called Americans, but when I'm called an American, I feel like crying.

[JAR]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Hold on, you were claiming "Englishness"
Not anymore. You explained to me clearly that I'm not English. You noted that there aren't any people in England who act like me. I've noticed that there aren't any people in America who act like me and I'm glad there aren't any, because I don't want to be called an American.

"English" and "American" are geographic terms meaning "people who live in England" and "people who live in America."

I prefer to think of myself as white, which is a racial term, and racial terms are better than geographic and ethnic terms.

[fishbob]

I prefer to think of myself as white, which is a racial term, and racial terms are better than geographic and ethnic terms.
You could just say "sorry, I was mistaken about prohibition" instead of getting all wierd on us.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by fishbob

You could just say "sorry, I was mistaken about prohibition" instead of getting all wierd on us.

He could, but this is JAR we're talking about.

BTW, JAR... Have we found the weapons of mass destruction yet?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR

Wrong. Skin color is influenced by genes. And who said we were just basing race on skin color? There is more than one feature that comprises what we call characteristically black and they are generally inherited genetically. Don't try to tell me race is not due to genetics. I've had this argument before and I'm tired of looking up the definition of race in my dictionary and then typing it into a reply on the forum.

Yes, but what you're not taking into account is, that regardless of your personal views, if legislation intended to effect change on a mass scale doesn't match the will of the people, then they will use what sociologist Howard Becker terms "innovative" (i.e., not strictly legal) methods to achieve their desires. Of course, the will of the people isn't always just, which is why we have representative democracy; but from any perspective, alcohol prohibition was a matter of attempting to make everyone subject to a very narrow moral standard, which was a legacy of the christian ascetic tradition, and as such, anti-democratic. The UK avoided complete prohibition, but instead opted for a peculiar set of licensing laws which appeased concerns for the moral wellbeing of the working class; not the physical wellbeing mind (that wouldn't come for another30 years or so), just the moral wellbeing (see also Winston Churchill and Marie Stopes' views on eugenics).

[Skeptic]

Besides, some people are actually stupid enough to drink while driving.

Bad idea. You might spill your drink.

I recommend that you replace that martini with soda pop.

Look, just because YOU are underage and can't get a beer...

[Skeptic]

Hell no! I'm not American first. Americanism is a love of racial and ethnic diversity. I hate racial and ethnic diversity.

Yes, we've noticed.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by JAR

I almost never drink alcoholic beverages.
When you live in your parent's house, I would imagine you have to play by their rules. Besides, you have to be 21 in most if not all states to buy liquior. That is why they ask for your ID every time you attempt to make a purchase and then are told to leave sans the beer. You need to find a place more accomodating or use an older sibling.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Absoutly I don't believe that people in the same familey should have sex, now excuse me I gotta take a leak and get another beer.

[jj]

Show me a place in history where that kind of substance prohibition worked. Anywhere. Anyplace.

Hint: It doesn't work. Humans will not respond positively to prohibition. They just don't. They'll find their way around. No matter what you prohibit in the substance or sex catagories.

All, and I mean all prohibition achieved was to teach a whole generation how to break the law. I can think of some present-day examples that are very similar, too.:i:

[Iamme]

I think I'll drink to this thread. Cheers!

[JAR]

This is ridiculous! Out of 64 votes, only 5 say yes. What's the world coming to. I now am thinking of starting a thread in the "Religion" section about how Western Civilization is drifting into a morally-perverse atheistic primordial state.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by JAR
This is ridiculous! Out of 64 votes, only 5 say yes. What's the world coming to. I now am thinking of starting a thread in the "Religion" section about how Western Civilization is drifting into a morally-perverse atheistic primordial state.

What are you? 12?
You've got to be kidding me. I would think you were illiterate and unable to read with this flawed idea you have that prohibition is a good thing, but you manage to be able to post your foolishness on the board so that can't be it.
Pick up any HS history book and you'll see what's wrong with Prohibition.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by JAR
This is ridiculous! Out of 64 votes, only 5 say yes. What's the world coming to. I now am thinking of starting a thread in the "Religion" section about how Western Civilization is drifting into a morally-perverse atheistic primordial state.

You have managed to completely duck the issue that alcohol in moderation is good for your health. Why is that? Don't tell me you don't want to answer it because it flies in the face of what you know about alcohol (ie, bugger-all)? :jaw:

[renata]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


What are you? 12?
You've got to be kidding me. I would think you were illiterate and unable to read with this flawed idea you have that prohibition is a good thing, but you manage to be able to post your foolishness on the board so that can't be it.
Pick up any HS history book and you'll see what's wrong with Prohibition.

Not to mention that there are several good posts on this very thread discussing adverse effects of Prohibition. JAR, care to predict consequences of Prohibition yet?

The fact that there are 5 votes for it just makes me wonder about sock puppets. :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR
This is ridiculous! Out of 64 votes, only 5 say yes. What's the world coming to. I now am thinking of starting a thread in the "Religion" section about how Western Civilization is drifting into a morally-perverse atheistic primordial state.

Ready when you are bud! (sorry, I mean "non-bud" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29971) :p )

[JAR]

In the Religion section I have now started my thread about how Western Civilization is going downhill towards communism.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by JAR
In the Religion section I have now started my thread about how Western Civilization is going downhill towards communism.

In this thread you continue to duck the issue of alcohol being beneficial to your health.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


In this thread you continue to duck the issue of alcohol being beneficial to your health.
Alcohol is good for you? If that isn't a good reason to join the temperance movement, I dunno what is... :D

[jj]

Originally posted by JAR

It worked in the U.S. The only thing that didn't work about it was that the U.S. government discontinued it.

It failed miserably in the U.S.

Why this historical revisionism?

I guess I should expect historical revisionism from you.

[jj]

Originally posted by JAR
In the Religion section I have now started my thread about how Western Civilization is going downhill towards communism.

Yes, and in it, you attempt to claim that atheism is equal to communism, never mind that communism, at its heart, is a faith, and that atheists aren't faith-based, and therefore can't be communists.

You sir, are a young, foolish, racist person. I would call you an imbicile, but that would libel the unfortunate.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by jj


Yes, and in it, you attempt to claim that atheism is equal to communism, never mind that communism, at its heart, is a faith, and that atheists aren't faith-based, and therefore can't be communists.
&lt;derail&gt; Hmmm... isn't all political or economic ideology (ultimately) faith-based? Even capitalism?&lt;/derail&gt;

Anyway, I think JAR's thread came about because I wouldn't let him be English, which on reflection was rather cruel of me. Sorry mate! To make up, I'd like to offer JAR my englishness. It's a bit dusty but practically as new because I've no use for it, and JAR–it's all yours!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR
This is ridiculous! Out of 64 votes, only 5 say yes. What's the world coming to. I now am thinking of starting a thread in the "Religion" section about how Western Civilization is drifting into a morally-perverse atheistic primordial state.

Yes, it might drift into a state of needing to have wars that kill millions every few years.