75 years since the greatest moment in US history

[ironbar]

Seventy five years ago today, 5 December 1933, the great republic pulled itself out of the morass created by the greatest self inflicted wound of all time. That’s right friend 75 years since we ratified the 21st Amendment, rolling back that crime against humanity; prohibition.

Once again the corks popped, the spirits flowed (legally), and life became just a little warmer. Of personal pride, my grandfather’s role in the struggle against prohibition- he drove a beer truck for a Philadelphia bootleg gang, excuse me a consortium of patriotic entrepreneurs.

So I ask you all to bend your elbow this evening with a nod to those great patriots, those hearty fellows who brought back the booze. I plan to celebrate with one of Tennessee's finest, Old Number 7, second only to Sgt York as the finest product of this fine state.

The before and after photos say it all.

[Sergei]

Wikipedia gives us the following.

* 1900 to 1948 in Prince Edward Island, and for shorter periods in other locations in Canada

* 1914 to 1925 in Russia and the Soviet Union

* 1915 to 1922 in Iceland (though beer was still prohibited until 1989)

* 1916 to 1927 in Norway (wine and beer also included in 1917)

* 1919 in Hungary (in the Hungarian Soviet Republic, March 21 to August 1; called szesztilalom)

* 1919 to 1932 in Finland (called kieltolaki)

* 1920 to 1933 in the United States

So apparently, Prince Edward Island is the winner. Of course, that list excludes the Muslim world (of which not all parts are as strict as Saudi Arabia) and various other specialties. Also, there are differences in how freely the liquor is available - eg. here it was only available in government monopoly stores and restaurants, until beer was released in 1969.

[Sergei]

Oh, and I'm responding to your call with some run of the mill Carlsberg and Olvi beer; I'm saving the good stuff for tomorrow when it's our independence day. Cheers all the way.

[Blackhorse]

There are still several "dry" counties here in the US where one cannot purchase alcohol. Additionally, there are several states, such as Virginia, that allow the sale of alcohol (Distilled spirits) in state run ABC stores.

Ironically the county where Jack Daniels is distilled (Lynchburg, TN) is "dry".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county

[Bigduke6]

Nothing like a Depression to make the Federal government see sense.

Maybe we'll get recreational pharmacuticals legalized, that would save a whole lot of taxpayer money.

[Boo Radley]

Yikes! The prospect of bussing one of these beauties would drive any man to drink.

And for that I thank them.

[Other Means]

Yikes! The prospect of bussing one of these beauties would drive any man to drink.

And for that I thank them.

Which one is you Boo?

[SgtMuhammed]

Muslim world (of which not all parts are as strict as Saudi Arabia)

An interesting note about this. The company I work for deals with the private plane operated by Saudi Refining that they use to fly the princes and other high company and government officials about (if you can call a 767 a private plane). It is always stocked with a selection of fine wines and liquors and has a film selection that includes the latest porn. I'm just saying.

[SSgt Viljuri]

(snips) Maybe we'll get recreational pharmacuticals legalized, that would save a whole lot of taxpayer money.

That would spell an End of Democracy at the very least, a brief period with the postmodernist totalitarian state could follow and then a full-blown anarchy.

At first, we would see attempts to regulate and mitigate ill effects somewhat (like not releasing most potent pills and stuff), but what we already know about addictions and their societal effects, not much success can be expected, so at the end of the day we would see the end of the Civilization as we know it. Game over. Panem et circenses.

[Other Means]

That would spell an End of Democracy at the very least, a brief period with the postmodernist totalitarian state could follow and then a full-blown anarchy.

At first, we would see attempts to regulate and mitigate ill effects somewhat (like not releasing most potent pills and stuff), but what we already know about addictions and their societal effects, not much success can be expected, so at the end of the day we would see the end of the Civilization as we know it. Game over. Panem et circenses.

Really? Didn't do that back when everything was legal. In WWI you could send morphine tinctures to the troops. Were they all eating lotuses while Five-Nines dropped behind? No.

Drugs are a phase. You grow out of it. You can get everything you want now anyway but all that lovely tax is going to the underground.

I was reading about the Mafia in Naples the other day. The city basically has zero say in what happens because they have access to so much money from selling drugs. Take away their revenue stream and you take away their power.

Legalise, sanitise, tax and move on.

[Boo Radley]

Which one is you Boo?

I'm the hot looking one.

Of course.

[GJK]

Legalise, sanitise, tax and move on.

Yup, it's working like a charm in Amsterdam. The Mafia/organized crime will simply retire if you legalize drugs. Don't forget prostitution too, gotta legalize that!

[SSgt Viljuri]

The fact that self-centered individualists are a majority in some parts of the Anglo-sphere, is an aberration on the Global scale and the rest of the World would do better without numbing Hollywood entertainment, US produced happy pills, religious cults, criminal organizations (with whom some parts of the US government are cooperating in the Third World countries), excessive political corruption, small-town hillbillies and stuff.

If somehow possible, the UK is much worse than this, because she suffers from all the ill effects of this "masturbatory" culture without offering any liberty to her citizens in exchange, and probably it is the Great Britain which will head first to the ultimate dystopia, translating to a nation where government issues happy pills to her populace, free of charge as per socialist policy, to keep the populace content.

Nah, the current double standard in the US is not the model to follow. And not necessarily the Dutch model either, as the criminal organizations are there, more deeply than ever, the Dutch just externalize the problem as the Netherlands is the number one source for all illicit drug trade in Europe, despite the 'emergence of former CIS region with so many failed nations and their semi-governmental distribution networks.

On an individual level it is perfectly okay to booze, as you pay the price in a form of taxes and hangover. This will keep most people in the safe side, just that this mechanism will not work what comes to happy pills.

Disclaimer: I really don't want to sound like a Frenchman or a Teuton, their cultures are even more wicked.

[Other Means]

Yep, legalised prostitution too. You may as well try and make it as safe as possible. Same as with drugs; just minimise the harm and manage the impact on the rest of society. Educate, don't proscribe. Education works, proscription doesn't. At least not at a level where you can keep a reasonably free society. All it does is channel the money to criminals.

[Bigduke6]

Let's not read too much into the Dutchies, all they have is it's legal to smoke a joints in a cafe or at home. You can't deal, you can't import in any scale, and anything harder is illegal and prosecuted seriously. The Dutch government still looks silly as it has to pretend the marijuana being smoked in the cafes and whatever appeared and got distributed by magic.

Still, it gets people into the cafes and off the streets, reduces cop time, and I read in Wikipedia the Dutch finance most of their anti-narcotics activities from tax income from legal grass, and what's more they have the best-financed government anti-drug information and rehabilitation programme in the world except for Sweden. Usage rates are lower than most countries and way lower than comparable seaside Western Protestant nations like Britain or the US. (Although greater than Sweden or for instance Greece.)

Still, I think it is safe to say that even the marginal semi-legalization of marijuana has not turned the Netherlands into a Mafia hellhole.

I'd legalize everything I could and take the tax money.

But I fear the liquor lobby and indeed the major illegal drug suppliers would support the idea, for them, illegal drugs are critical to high profits.

[Stalins Organ]

WE have legalised prostitution here - brothels have to comply with local council land use guidelines (they are classed as a place of work), OSH requirements, pay income taxes, etc.

It hasn't stopped all the problems, but it's a bloody good start!

[costard]

This ties in nicely with the Afghan Supply thread.

If we go the way of legalisation - have NATO tender for cheap, reliable transport of the opium crop to the sea and thereby pay for the cost of running supplies for the army inland. The trucks and drivers will stay alive because it is in everyone's interest for them to do so. It also means that the opium traders are less inclined to trade for weapons because NATO now sponsors their legitimate business and can be relied upon to enforce security - a large part of the opium traders' budget is now taken care of by the state.

[Other Means]

This ties in nicely with the Afghan Supply thread.

If we go the way of legalisation - have NATO tender for cheap, reliable transport of the opium crop to the sea and thereby pay for the cost of running supplies for the army inland. The trucks and drivers will stay alive because it is in everyone's interest for them to do so. It also means that the opium traders are less inclined to trade for weapons because NATO now sponsors their legitimate business and can be relied upon to enforce security - a large part of the opium traders' budget is now taken care of by the state.

I've thought for a while that the west could outbid the existing suppliers for the opium harvest. Even if it didn't go on to make drugs and sell it, it's got to be cheaper than trying to stop the entry of refined product. And it would make the transport and refining arm wither on the vine.

It would also mean that the farmers would either sell to the west or be coerced into selling to their existing buyers. So the farmers then have a driver to work with the west rather than the current illegal, who-knows-where-the-money-goes route.

Note - morals be damned. I just go by what works and what effects the rest of society.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Libertarian or leftist narratives around these issues are so confusing, how could you "legalize" prostitution as many feminists and some others see it as a form of slavery? Moral relativism isn't necessarily the brightest thing ever imagined by man, that includes the postmodernists and feminists too.

Then again, you could criminalize soliciting paid sex like they did in Sweden, and put only men behind bars.

[Stalins Organ]

Libertarian or leftist narratives around these issues are so confusing, how could you "legalize" prostitution as many feminists and some others see it as a form of slavery?

Yes some still harp on along those lines. Most of the actual prostitutes see it as work.

there was an article here recently expressing pretty much that pov from some conservative women's group .......along with decrying the fact that there are still under-age prostitutes and saying that proves that legalisation has not worked.

Of course sex with under-age people is still illegal (for both genders) from other law and has got nothing at all to do with legalising the rest!

Moral relativism isn't necessarily the brightest thing ever imagined by man, that includes the postmodernists and feminists too.

I have no idea what that means:confused:

Then again, you could criminalize soliciting paid sex like they did in Sweden, and put only men behind bars.

Or you could make it legal and put no-one behind bars at all.

[hoolaman]

I've thought for a while that the west could outbid the existing suppliers for the opium harvest. Even if it didn't go on to make drugs and sell it, it's got to be cheaper than trying to stop the entry of refined product. And it would make the transport and refining arm wither on the vine.

It would also mean that the farmers would either sell to the west or be coerced into selling to their existing buyers. So the farmers then have a driver to work with the west rather than the current illegal, who-knows-where-the-money-goes route.

Note - morals be damned. I just go by what works and what effects the rest of society.

If recreational opiates were legal, they could be grown in much friendlier and more productive locations in the west and the Afghan harvest would be completely unwanted. No money for warlords, they'll have to go and grow wheat or something.

Cocaine could be also grown and distributed by the good guys in South America.

Just make it available to anyone from a government dispensary under strictly controlled conditions.

[dieseltaylor]

Buying up the crop as a short term measure will, of course, eventually lead to imports to Afghanistan and an increased debt load for the West. If the West holds it off the market other drugs will fill the void created. If the West supplies to its population it will need to seriously consider the ways to prevent over-use., and possibly even fundamentally is it desirable.

My preferred option is to sabotage all drug sources with a reasonable percentage of lethal agents until people REALLY understand that drugs kill. Of course the sending of soldiers abroad to kill and be killed to incidentally prevent the Afghan trade would seem to show that the West is prepared to kill people to further its aims. I just think its easier to do it my way.

In societies were the state does not look after the family one can expect peer pressure and sense to help family units prevent dangerous use. However in most Western countries the concept that "society" will cure all, do all means their is an insidious breakdown of responsibility for individuals and their family. We have a case of everyone preaching freedoms for all and no one promoting responsibility - AS of course the "state" will provide.

Unfortunately the "state" can do nothing as it is only a concept. People are required to make their State work and unfortunately there is a widespread abdication. That this is a function of more and more remote decision making I am absolutley certain.

[SgtMuhammed]

Libertarian or leftist narratives around these issues are so confusing, how could you "legalize" prostitution as many feminists and some others see it as a form of slavery?

Many feminists also see marriage as a form of slavery so should we outlaw that as well? Basing policy on the opinion of the various -ists is pretty stupid.

Why is it legal for two men to beat the living crap out of each other but not to pay 50 euro for sex instead of spending 100 euro on dinner and hoping for it?

[Subvet]

Basing policy on the opinion of the various -ists is pretty stupid.

Exactly. I enjoy bringing up the legalization of prostitution to the feminist (and others) who say a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body (they are normally saying this about abortion). Funny, whenever I ask them if that means we should legalize prostitution they suddenly change their tune. Same applies to legalizing drug use. If a woman wants to shoot heroin into her body, shouldn’t that be her choice? Usually they are against that as well. So when it comes right down to it, they aren’t really for a woman to have the right to do what she wants with her body. A bunch of hypocrites if you ask me.

[Tarquelne]

Your feminists are defective. Get an RMA and put them in the post.