anything that does to your mind what alcoholic drinks do, but doesn’t have wide-scale social support from respectable people, is going to get banned or otherwise given severe restrictions.
Understand now? If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would be Just Another Mind Altering Substance that would be banned, or that you’d need a prescription for.
Please, finish sentences before responding to them
a) you’re not really curious,
b) expect any answer to come back negative, and
c) aren’t interested in arguing whether he can read a full clause anyway.
If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would be Just Another Mind Altering Substance that would be banned, or that you’d need a prescription for.
I find this difficult to swallow. Alcohol prohibition was a widely acknowledged disaster (or does this collective memory also count as “social support”?). The “Joe Sixpacks” of the nation aren’t crooning over Miller’s exquisite blend of hops, but they’d be up in arms if you tried to take it away.
And drug policy (at least in the US) isn’t particularly consistent—if you don’t believe me, feel free to conduct your own experiment with some high-potency salvia extract.
I doubt most people are worried even subconsciously about the reintroduction of prohibition. Why postulate a coordinated social response to such a non-threat?
I find this difficult to swallow. Alcohol prohibition was a widely acknowledged disaster (or does this collective memory also count as “social support”?).
Yes it was a disaster—because of alcohol’s widespread social support, that led to the black market, inability to enforce, etc.
Hence my statement
If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would … be banned, or … need a prescription.
You also said:
I doubt most people are worried even subconsciously about the reintroduction of prohibition. Why postulate a coordinated social response to such a non-threat?
There are many measures short of prohibition that restrict alcohol. In trying to impose them, as society imposes restrictions on mind-altering substances, legislatures butt up against the social support for alcohol. Retaining this support is necessary for preventing these (otherwise reasonable) restrictions on alcohol.
This is getting perilously close to politics, but the difference with alcohol is the great history of human use. Alcohol was one of the first drugs regularly consumed by humans. A lot of culture has developed around that. Prohibition failed because it tried to outlaw the culture. Cannabis and psychedelics were also used by pre-modern humans, but the government could outlaw the other drugs without a people’s revolt because the average person didn’t use cannabis and psychedelics. The average person did and does use alcohol.
Do you have trouble reading a full clause?
Understand now? If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would be Just Another Mind Altering Substance that would be banned, or that you’d need a prescription for.
Please, finish sentences before responding to them
SilasBarta, I too am puzzled at why Blueberry misunderstood you, but your response was needlessly rude.
Would you say it was more or less rude than clipping a sentence in two and responding to one that misrepresented what I said?
Do any of you intend to criticize/mod down Blueberry for his/her rudeness, or do you just reserve your rebukes for the diligent?
I submit that
a) you’re not really curious, b) expect any answer to come back negative, and c) aren’t interested in arguing whether he can read a full clause anyway.
I find this difficult to swallow. Alcohol prohibition was a widely acknowledged disaster (or does this collective memory also count as “social support”?). The “Joe Sixpacks” of the nation aren’t crooning over Miller’s exquisite blend of hops, but they’d be up in arms if you tried to take it away.
And drug policy (at least in the US) isn’t particularly consistent—if you don’t believe me, feel free to conduct your own experiment with some high-potency salvia extract.
I doubt most people are worried even subconsciously about the reintroduction of prohibition. Why postulate a coordinated social response to such a non-threat?
Yes it was a disaster—because of alcohol’s widespread social support, that led to the black market, inability to enforce, etc.
Hence my statement
You also said:
There are many measures short of prohibition that restrict alcohol. In trying to impose them, as society imposes restrictions on mind-altering substances, legislatures butt up against the social support for alcohol. Retaining this support is necessary for preventing these (otherwise reasonable) restrictions on alcohol.
Salvia is both new and little known in comparison to marijuana, LSD, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.
This is getting perilously close to politics, but the difference with alcohol is the great history of human use. Alcohol was one of the first drugs regularly consumed by humans. A lot of culture has developed around that. Prohibition failed because it tried to outlaw the culture. Cannabis and psychedelics were also used by pre-modern humans, but the government could outlaw the other drugs without a people’s revolt because the average person didn’t use cannabis and psychedelics. The average person did and does use alcohol.