[split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
Having lost many friends to cocaine and heroin over the years, I can attest that they are dangerous. I lost people to alcohol too. . In the west the custom of alcohol is ancient and would be difficult to halt. Indeed we have seen it in the US back in the 20's and now with drugs and gangs.

I don't really see a point in singling them out. Nixon's creating The war on drugs was a bad idea. It disallows any change. And it's pointless.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 06:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 06:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Banning is not the only (and probably the least effective) method of social engineering.

Except when banning smoking in bars....then it's the best method, right? Huh

Look, guys....I'm sorry, but I'm not going to change my mind on this. I'm all for banning smoking in all public places (streets, government buildings, public parks, etc), but I'm talking about the inside of a privately owned pub. I would even support banning smoking in homes and cars when kids are inside. I still say, if the market has a demand for either smoking, or smoke-free bars, then that's what you'll see.

Regarding social engineering....I don't really want someone trying to socially engineer me. Again, call me strange, but "being socially engineered" hasn't made it to my to-do list just yet.

No it's not the best method. Making smoking socially unacceptable (like driving when drunk) or too expensive would be better methods.

... as per the anti-Prohibition argument.

Why do you think it's socially unacceptable to drive while drunk? Because of social engineering.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 07:02 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 05:14 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  "We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level." http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675

hmm.....

So opium and cocaine are "potentially dangerous", but not alcohol? Huh

Mark Thornton Wrote:It should be noted that annual per capita consumption and the percentage of annual per capita income spent on alcohol had been steadily falling before Prohibition and that annual spending on alcohol during Prohibition was greater than it had been before Prohibition[4].

...

(the) consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933.[6] Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout Prohibition despite ever-increasing resources devoted to enforcement.[7] That pattern of consumption, shown in Figure 1, is to be expected after an entire industry is banned: new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.

(Figure 1: Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.)
[Image: pa-157a.gif]
Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72.
[4] See Mark Thornton, "The Economics of Prohibition" (Ph.D. diss., Auburn University, 1989), pp. 174-80
[6] According to Warburton, from 1921 to 1929 the apparent per capita consumption of beer increased 463 percent, that of wine increased 100 percent, and that of spirits increased 520 percent. While per capita beer consumption in 1929 was only one-third the 1909 level, per capita consumption of wine and spirits was above 1909 levels. If that trend had continued, total per capita consumption of alcohol would have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels during the mid-1930s. Warburton, p. 174.
[7] As noted above, Warburton found that production of beer, wine, and spirits rapidly expanded during the 1920s. It should be remembered that illegal sources of alcohol were just organizing in 1920-21 and that large inventories could still be relied on during those early years.

Later in the paper, Thornton notes that the Prohibition had multiple consequences contradictory to its own goals: the strength of many alcohols increased considerably, a good deal was made by amateur moonshiner's whose products were likely to harm or kill consumers (likely leading to sky-rocketing rates of death by alcohol poisoning), and it may have actually increased the availability of alcohol. This was in addition to the considerable increase in crime rates which followed the enactment of Prohibition laws, and the increased spending on and consumption of more potentially dangerous and addictive substances (like the previously mentioned drugs and patent medicines among others) which brought more people into contact with criminals, further increasing risks.
The overall point being that making alcohol illegal wouldn't improve the state of things.

Getting away from the paper: Yes, I would say drugs like opium, cocaine, and quack works like patent medicines are more dangerous than alcohol. Narcotics and the like not only tend to be more addictive than alcohol, they tend to be considerably more potent, and patent medicines could be filled with any number of deleterious substances. In addition to that, much like Prohibition era bootleg booze, illegal narcotics (then and now) are unregulated outside of criminal prosecution and are usually contaminated with adulterants likely to harm consumers, which I feel leads them to be considerably more dangerous than alcohol which is largely controlled and held to standards.
I'm not dismissing alcohol as a potentially dangerous substance, I just think it represents a lesser risk relative to other substances.

I don't support the prohibition of drugs and I also don't support the prohibition of smoking in private pubs, I prefer to let people decide these matters for themselves. I like freedom, I like options.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 01:13 PM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 03:51 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 11:11 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  You said it netter then I could.

Thanks.


But not even a 'like'?

Weeping
Im sorry my like button doesn't work it keeps loading???
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 01:18 PM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 01:13 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 03:51 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Thanks.


But not even a 'like'?

Weeping
Im sorry my like button doesn't work it keeps loading???

No problem. Just kidding you.

That happens in mobile view but it's OK in 'full site'-mode.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 01:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 01:13 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  Im sorry my like button doesn't work it keeps loading???

No problem. Just kidding you.

That happens in mobile view but it's OK in 'full site'-mode.

Smile

I know you were but I tried to keep in the full site mode but it won't stay
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 01:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 01:13 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  Im sorry my like button doesn't work it keeps loading???

No problem. Just kidding you.

That happens in mobile view but it's OK in 'full site'-mode.

Smile

DLJ, I think you need to go sit in the corner for being such a "like whore." Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 03:09 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 04:06 PM by DLJ.)
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 01:27 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 01:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  No problem. Just kidding you.

That happens in mobile view but it's OK in 'full site'-mode.

Smile

DLJ, I think you need to go sit in the corner for being such a "like whore." Tongue

Thanks. My feet were getting sore standing on my corner.

These heels! goddamn!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
14-09-2015, 04:44 PM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 06:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Look, guys....I'm sorry, but I'm not going to change my mind on this.

At least you're honest. Won't waste much more time on you, then. But this --

(14-09-2015 06:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'm all for banning smoking in all public places (streets, government buildings, public parks, etc), but I'm talking about the inside of a privately owned pub.

The pub owner does not own the lungs of his employees.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:25 PM
RE: [split] Office Depot refuses to print a religious flyer against abortion
(14-09-2015 04:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 06:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Look, guys....I'm sorry, but I'm not going to change my mind on this.

At least you're honest. Won't waste much more time on you, then. But this --

(14-09-2015 06:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'm all for banning smoking in all public places (streets, government buildings, public parks, etc), but I'm talking about the inside of a privately owned pub.

The pub owner does not own the lungs of his employees.
Yes yes yes the owner doest own his employees lungs I love this and will use it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: